Today there were two interesting pieces posted about my Huffington Post piece. Many of you have probably already seen these. They are written by two atheists of serious intellect and experience, who are gently critiquing the methodology of my year long journey. I am grateful for their engagement with me and I look forward to incorporating their comments into my thinking about this journey. Many others have said very similar things in the comment here on the blog (I read every comment, by the way) so I understand that many atheists feel I’m not sincerely or genuine in what I am doing. All I can say is, thank you for your insights and critique and time will tell.
Here they are. What do you think?
Happy Atheist | To the Pastor Giving Atheism a Shot for a Year: You’re Doing It Wrong
Year Without God 
I commend your bravery. I’m an atheist, but in a believing family and community, it’s not a big deal. I’ve often wondered whether I’d have reached the same beliefs if there had been a strong counter pressure. Some “religious” friends of mine are closet atheists but fear community response if they were to come out, so don’t (which is fine for them).
I think Alain De Botton’s – Religion for Atheists might be useful. He suggests interesting ways to enhance an atheist life with borrowed ideas and rituals. I do enjoy some aspects of religious life, church buildings, some religious music, etc. But as an atheist, I can enjoy Buddhist chants and the Islamic call to prayer as well.
Good luck.
They are right. When I first read that you would try on atheism by living like an atheist I just though: How do atheists live?
We don’t have certain rituals or a dogma and we also don’t have any sacred books. What your really doing is not trying out atheism but simply educating yourself about the topic and how people end up as atheists.
Even though your initial goal of “living like an atheist” might be a bit of an awkward task since we really don’t do anything special, I still encourage you to further investigate religion and atheism and I’d like to read more about your journey.
Oh, I replied to someone. Didn’t mean to do that.
I was told that one time Mother Terisa was being offered money and her reply was “I dont want your money- I want your heart”.
I, as everyone is, was born an atheist; but unlike others I was born to out-of-the-closet atheists as well. Atheism is fundamentally decentralized and unique to each individual there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way to go about living as one. I live as an atheist differently than my parents and differently than my many friends who are atheists. I have occasionally attended church. I have read only one book by Dawkins and part of one by Hitchens. I follow atheist groups online but have never attended any meetings in person.
Part of the benefits of atheism is the freedom to do it anyway you like. If you want to emerse yourself in the arguments and debates you can, if you be bothered that is fine too. If you want to crusade against religion and try to ‘convert’ everyone you meeting you can, if you would rather befriend theists and work together for the common good on other issues you can. If you just want to write angry comments on theist websites you can do that too.
The way to be an atheist is simply to let go of the desire for God to exist.
“The way to be an atheist is simply to let go of the desire for God to exist.” – An excellent way to put it.
Remove the vestments of the church and walk naked amongst the gods of men.
I do find it interesting that most people claim to be AN atheist – as if it too, is an organized group.
I, as everyone is, was born an atheist; but unlike others I was born to out-of-the-closet atheists as well. Atheism is fundamentally decentralized and unique to each individual there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way to go about living as one. I live as an atheist differently than my parents and differently than my many friends who are atheists. I have occasionally attended church. I have read only one book by Dawkins and part of one by Hitchens. I follow atheist groups online but have never attended any meetings in person.
Part of the benefits of atheism is the freedom to do it anyway you like. If you want to emerse yourself in the arguments and debates you can, if you be bothered that is fine too. If you want to crusade against religion and try to ‘convert’ everyone you meeting you can, if you would rather befriend theists and work together for the common good on other issues you can. If you just want to write angry comments on theist websites you can do that too.
The way to be an atheist is simply to let go of the desire for God to exist.
Not sure how one might go about “doing it wrong”, since it’s your search for meaning, and you set the course. It’s possible to quibble about the notion that you can appreciably “live like an atheist” – which others have already pointed out. That is an odd idea, but I think it even more interesting that, true to the either-or orientation fostered by millennia of dogma, the only option considered is either Christianity or “atheism.” If I were to say you were “doing it wrong” it would be only to suggest that there is a greater range of approach available to questions of this kind than on-off. There are plenty of interesting thoughts to think on the subject of the ultimate ground of being and one’s possible relation to it, with the Greeks (as one example) weighing in voluminously on the matter before Christianity was even a glimmer in Judaism’s eye.
I suppose a main point of interest here, to me, is that many atheists are as cocksure and dogmatic regarding their ideology as any monotheist, and equally as intolerant of those who disagree with them. The contempt shown in the comments for anyone who follows – gasp! – a traditional religious path (say, kami-no-michi), or modern paganism, or simply a liberal version of one of the Abrahamic faiths is indicative of minds equally closed and intolerant of ambiguity as you would find in any fundamentalist enclave, be it Oklahoma City or Basra. Why not resolve to explore the possibilities inherent in, say Vedic thought, or Gnosticism? Atheism is certainly the more immediately shocking turn, sure – and best suited to garnering attention – but how much can you say you have explored the range of possibilities if you are merely deciding whether or not to leave the light on at all?
^ What he said! I was literally thinking the same thing and came here to write something similar, but since KD Perry said what I was thinking much more eloquently than I’m sure I would have, I will keep it short and say that I wholeheartedly agree! I get that this year is about exploring atheism, but it doesn’t have to be an either/or (either Christianity or atheism) proposition! Keep your options open before you make final decision!
Two brief, simple points about the title question: (1) Well, how could anyone in your position hope to do something like this completely and perfectly right? We all make mistakes – what matters is that we learn from them. (2) Based on the quality of many responses you’ve been getting so far in this stream of posts, you clearly are doing something right. (I haven’t read them all – what a job that is! – but I certainly look forward to your upcoming posts and the dialogs that will ensue.)
BTW, the pseudonym I use is a play on the term “autotelic”, which is defined as: “adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its own existence.” For me, at least, that’s a big part of the non-theistic world view.
One last point (sorry if this repeats some previous comment I didn’t read yet): part of the journey / process for atheists / agnostics is to look closely at the “foundational texts” for any given religion. Given how recently SDA was formed, there’s plenty of history available about the formative years and events, from both SDA-internal and external sources. If you can examine that with the same type of scrutiny you would apply to the foundation of Mormonism, then you’re doing it right. (Here I’m only talking about the process of unbiased examination, not about the conclusions you draw as a result, which are a separate matter.)
Mr. Bell – the planet, the universe is the sacred text for non-belief. During your time “away,” I suggest you journey into awe;
Look at the soil. Dirt. Rocks. Mountains. Rivers.
Look at the sky; the sun, the moon, the stars, the visible planets.
Look under a microscope; marvel at simple organisms. Bacteria that reproduce by cellular fission of a single cell, and yet can transmit genes across non-related cells.
Don’t study “atheism,” sir. Study what is all around you every day.
Listen to Neil deGrasse Tyson, watch some Jason Silva. Watch some Carl Sagan. Marvel at the universe.
^YES.
This commenting system needs a ‘like’ button, when I read things like that.
The vice of any religion is to convince its potential adherents that they are sick and then offer god as their only cure.
From the route you’re taking in this journey – read atheist “sacred texts”, explore the various ways of being atheist, visit atheist gatherings – it seems as though you’ve just abandoned the god approach in search of an alternate cure. As if you’ve created a void in leaving your church and feel a need to fill that void with something else. This is where I think you’re approach is flawed. Rather, the moment you identify as an atheist will be the moment you realize that you were never sick to begin with. There is no void… That moment will be your salvation.
Took the words right out of my mouth … er, right out of my keyboard, I guess. As much as I enjoyed Epstein, Sagan et al and recognize how their perspectives have influenced my worldview, I cringe whenever someone “welcomes a new nonbeliever” with recommendations of books to read as if they’re rites of initiation or (worse) the cost of admission into a new club. Atheism is lack of belief in–and thus need for–gods, pure and simple. Searching for a new doctrine to replace the discarded one misses the point entirely.
A great analogy is “non stamp collecting”: do people who don’t engage in stamp collecting spend their days meditating about not collecting stamps, reading about not collecting stamps, attending non-stamp-collecting events and seeking out other non-stamp-collectors? No, they don’t. They live happy lives, free of the burdens and distractions of philately.
//A great analogy is “non stamp collecting”: do people who don’t engage in stamp collecting spend their days meditating about not collecting stamps, reading about not collecting stamps, attending non-stamp-collecting events and seeking out other non-stamp-collectors? No, they don’t. They live happy lives, free of the burdens and distractions of philately.//
But they do spend time arguing with people who DO “collect stamps,” and continually try to convince those people that “stamps” don’t exist. So, in reality, they do spend their days meditating about not collecting stamps, why other shouldn’t collect stamps, and writing books and blogs why stamps don’t exist. Every debate on this thread is proof of this fact.
Which is evidence that the experiences with the religion, Evangelical Christianity in my case. that we were exposed to as kids was toxic. An individual does not simply “walk away” from the damage Christianity does to those who “believe.” Getting exposed to the nonsense when young makes it worse.
When Christians intimidate children into “belief” using fear they are no different than pedophiles. Which is why child sexual abuse is also more frequent among Christians than non-believers.
To be a Christian like Paul means passing along the abuse in society.
My case an point here is Paul. He’s not once presented a cogent argument for his points, but he’s definitely sure tried intimidation. Examined with a careful and open mind, “authority issues” are at the root of almost every one of Paul’s responses. Pauls is just passing Christ along the way Paul understands his own experience – by a force reflective of the way Paul “believes” in Jesus. Note how the actual message of Jesus is missing from Paul’s performance; no love, no forgiveness. Just the authoritarian need to have proof, follow and be correct.
Personally, I’m glad to be able to “out” Christians like Paul for the bad things they bring to people’s lives around the world.
Is Paul a criminal in the psychological sense? Probably.
We need to do a better job of protecting the vulnerable from creeps like him.
Pingback: “Why Are You Still a Christian?”
Jacques Rousseau is right: atheism is an ontological position, not a lifestyle. But…
Sometimes people aren’t sure what they believe. And at some level, all belief is provisional. If it weren’t, then we could never learn anything, or advance science, or correct error.
If you aren’t sure what you believe, then trying on a belief–like a lifestyle, or suit of clothes–can be useful and worthwhile. Here’s an example.
Back around 2000, I decided that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans much represented my interests, so I joined the Libertarian party. I changed my party registration. I donated some money. And then, having made that commitment, I started following their blogs, and reading their web sites. I read the party platform.
Within a few weeks, I had concluded that the party had no hope of ever attaining any political power, that the philosophy ranged from unrealistic to incoherent, and that the members were mostly engaged in wishful thinking. And that was the end of my involvement in Libertarianism.
Here’s the point: I had known about Libertarianism for years. I had understood all the basic ideas. I found much of it attractive. But it wasn’t until I actually joined the party–tried it on, so to speak–that I could think about it in sufficiently definite terms to start to form my own opinions of it. Opinions that were sufficiently clear and grounded that they could guide my actions and decisions–in this case, the decision to leave the party.
It’s a bit like the way courts won’t hear a case unless there is an actual controversy between two parties. Partly, of course, that’s just because the court doesn’t want to waste its time on a case when there is no actual controversy. But more deeply, it is because you need to have an actual controversy–two opposing parties who both care about the outcome–in order to make the issue before the court sufficiently clear and definite for the court to render a judgement. Without such a controversy, a trial becomes an empty intellectual exercise.
So, yeah, be an atheist. See how it feels. See how it feels after a day, after a month, after a year. Ultimately, Rousseau is right: beliefs aren’t something you can choose: you either believe it or you don’t. But sometimes you have to adopt a belief on a provisional basis to find out whether you really believe it or not.
Good observation.
I disagree. Atheism can be a life style and not just a position.
If I believe in the benefits of yoga and good nutrition.., it can become a lifestyle.
If I decide to stop cluttering my mind with doubtful thoughts, about the supernatural and decide to focus upon a proof based belief system, it must influence my lifestyle and perhaps become a lifestyle.
Instead of filling my time with religious orientations and beliefs about worshiping the unknown. I choose to fill it with science based observations that can be recorded and measured and theorized.
A life style, based upon Atheism…, l life without god.., a-theism.
Yes, it can be but not necessarily. See: Not All Atheists Are Pro Atheism
Unfortunately, there is a “dictionary definition” type of atheist, which just doesn’t believe in a god, but.. those people have proven, even in the skeptical movement, to be just about useless. Its not sufficient, because you can not believe in a god, but still, for example, believe in the absurd idea that you can have $80 billion dollars in corporate subsistence, which exists because such companies won’t pay people enough to live on (i.e., libertarianism, or at least a huge part of its “small government, lets trade that for 5 billion in charity, which, despite the fact that most donations come from poor people, will somehow *grow* to fill in the 75 billion dollar gap between them…), and yet, still disbelieve god, and call that patently absurd.
Many have begun to argue that atheism, to be meaningful, has to be a, “way of thinking”, you need to reach conclusions, not just about god, but about everything else, that is based not on what you wish is true, or hope is true, or would be comforted if it was true, but what actually *is* true. That it matters that your “movement”, while attacking quacks, ignores misogyny in its own ranks. That it matters whether or not your *ally* is, with one hand, claiming to promote good science, and with the other hand is promoting the idea that god wrote his name some place in our DNA, or “front loaded” the process. It matters if there are people who claim to be the same thing as you who will actually use the poster from a distopian video game, about an obsessed capitalist, who thinks the world needs to be under his personal rule, by what ever means possible, without any awareness, or irony, as an example of their goals (mind, I am sure the atheist members of that silly “party” probably, being strict dictionary atheists, only objected to the “god” part of the game poster…)
Too many not only are only interested in the god issue, they can’t even see their own problems, or acknowledge that the “enemy” is sometimes getting more things done than they are, *in* those areas they think are “not relevant”. Its almost like being among a group of Catholics, but without the excuse that “god told me to”.
Life style… Pretty sure my “life style”, other than not involving church services, isn’t all that much different than any other person.
As a belief system… I am of the camp that I see too many silly ideas about what gods are, too many redefinitions of that, and too much hand waving, and waffling, when you point out flaws in the descriptions, and try to pin people down to just what exactly they think god is (never mind the fact that the result, quite often, contradicts basic principles, which they only ignore and fail to apply, when discussing the god issue).
As a position… My only position is that we have enough bloody silly things people delude themselves with, without learning anything different, without keeping ones that large swaths of the rest of the world already do without, and which the ones that don’t, are even more unjust, inhumane, mad, or just insane, then much of the US tends to be.
I am reminded of a few lines from a Terry Pratchett novel, from his character Samuel Vimes, “Do you think it’s possible for an entire nation to be insane? … Not the people, the nation. … You take a bunch of people who don’t seem any different from you and me , but when you add them all together you get this sort of huge raving maniac with national boarders and an anthem.” A bit from a book about a nation who, on one hand, all prayed to a dead “saint” call, “The Duchess”, and attacked everyone else around them for crazy reasons, based on an increasingly absurd set of “abominations”, which are later in the book described as, “Your god died a long time ago, you know, that is why those abominations are getting more and more absurd. They are echos, reflections of your own fear, insecurities, etc.” Words, spilled out on a page, like magic, and declaring everything from the color blue, to children, and even rocks, “abominations unto Nuggan”.
No. To me, and many others, atheism isn’t simply disbelief in a god. It can’t be, or remain, merely that, as much as the purists would like. It wasn’t even that to Nietzsche, who, as absurd as some of his ideas where, never the less “demanded” that there not being a god had consequences to what is right and wrong, and which category, if either (since reality is often not so nicely pigeon holed), something falls into. Its about how, or even if, you think about the world, the things and people in it, and the solutions you need to come up with, to make things better. Instead of.. waiting for Nuggan to tell you what the next silly think that is sinful, or evil, or ungodly is. Its about getting it as right as you can manage, the first time, and not keep doing the same things, over and over, when they don’t bloody work. If the end result is a sane god, so be it. But… right now all the options are, at best, about as grounded in reality as the fictitious Mr. Deity tends to be, or, in the worst cases, bloody nuts.
Funny thing about Shame and embarrassment. As an educator and an observer of how students, parents, and adults, generally respond to challenges to their behavior. There is a noticeable decrease in both responses when caught performing anti-social, illegal and immoral acts. Everything from cheating on tests to pedophilia finds perpetrators who exhibit no conscious guilt. We thus are astounded by their failure to be ashamed and embarrassed. Dennis Hastert, just came out suing his victim of pedophilia, for the money he paid his victim to remain quiet. Hastert admitted to doing wrong to others, and is serving a prison term as well as being permanently labeled a sex offender. Where we may ask, is his shame and embarrassment? Amazing, he has none! Which goes a long way to explaining, how he could have allowed himself to choose to abuse children. He is also a hypocrite. As Speaker of the House, he postured himself and promoted laws to punish lawbreakers and sexual predators.
We know that religious fanatics and practitioners are not immune to performing illegal, immoral acts. Sadly, too many make excuses and refuse to be contrite. Conclusion? Religious teaching and indoctrination do not prevent such criminal choices. Likewise, those who do not subscribe to any traditional God-oriented philosophy, and practice, are not immune to self-destructive choices. I think it is human nature to chose to be aligned with healthy social choices and/or misaligned. It doesn’t matter what your belief system is, which sustains you through living experiences. We are all naturally vulnerable to temptations and must choose between the morally good or not. This is the definition of the ‘Original Sin’, which condemned mankind to suffer for their choices and experience the gnawing, haunting guilt associated with bad choices. These choices are either healthy or harmful to oneself, and others in society, as well as the rest of the planet’s environment and creatures. G.
Convenient, given how often shame and guilt are used, and have been throughout history, to “drive” people to commit atrocities. No one is immune to self destructive choices. Its called being human, and it has jack all to do with original sin. Its called “not being omniscient”. We often don’t know what the consequences are of an action, or we have not learned to recognize them, or.. we have found, or been taught, bad justifications for them, which we then become increasingly less and less capable of avoiding. Half the things that a **good** Christian would have done to each other, never mind their enemies, less than 200 years ago, almost no one aside form the clinically insane would commit today. We didn’t stop doing those things by becoming “more” religious – the people that are, or did, tend to blow up innocent people, shoot them up clinics, or… condemn thousands of women to unwanted pregnancies and death, because they can’t, like the freaks we now how in charge of the government, can’t grasp the basic moral concept that – “If the world is imperfect, expecting, and trying to enforce perfection, without having the proper tools to do so, is inhuman, and evil, and kills people.”
Its always the same – it starts with, “These people shouldn’t be allowed to make those mistakes, and we need to save their souls.”, progresses to imprisonment, “accidental” deaths, and, some form of eventual extermination, if taken to the logical extreme. It doesn’t matter if the purpose is “purification” of the race, or the soul, or “protecting the children”, or what… immoral, in our case, unconstitutional, evil, and usually deadly, more often than not to those being “saved”, consequences are eventually doled out, in the name of “fixing” the problem. Yet, its never the people who beat the slave, burn someone at the stake, push them into a concentration camp, steal their life, and other children (which is what happens if you start imprisoning women who decide they can’t afford another kid, for doing something “immoral”), and so on, who are ever the people that need to step back and consider whether or not their actions are self destructive, or harmful to others.
No, its everyone else, who people like you, without any cause, or justification, slander and sling mud at, for not sharing your silly idea that somehow believe in some sort of god will prevent this sort of thing, which are the immoral ones. Always the witch, never the witch hunter. Meanwhile, the truth of what does, and doesn’t cause harm wins out anyway. I am quite sure that televangelists have no shame, that climate denialists have none, that Trump, who just recently stabbed low income housing people in the back has even less. In fact, I would say that, with every lie, and every assertion all of this batch of oligarchs and fanatics make about the “truth” of how the world works, which is contradicted by **every single scrap of evidence they didn’t write themselves, or hire someone to write for them**, are completely without any shame, nor will they be when real people are harmed, or die. Heck there are people, right now, emboldened by this BS, who are trying to pass laws making basic things like protesting, or talking back to a cop, or just printing something that isn’t approved of, an act of “terrorism” in some states, already – direct violations of nearly every single line in the freaking first amendment. How many of these people have any more shame than Tokamata did, or the first Christians that decided to throw rival Christians to lions in Rome, or…
You can take your “philosophy of god” and shove it. It has never created anything other than a mass of excuses for not changing things, upholding the status quo, at best, or mass murder, and oppression, at worst, depending on who used it to excuse their excesses, complete with Bible quotes to prove they where right, and on whether their goal was to keep power, or strip it from others. The ends, for the religious, always, always, justify the means – because, to question their use would *require* questioning whether or not they where even right in the first place.
All of which is a mute point, because you commit here a sin yourself – you damn everyone that isn’t religious, on the basis of accusing them, falsely, of the same thinking as someone *everyone*, including the people you want to be superior to, would condemn. Its funny, but.. one of the things that makes this country great is that, yeah, as much as we hate it, everyone has the right to make a complete ass out of themselves. And, that means, yes, the man you mention has the right to try to sue his victim. It doesn’t make him right, the action just, his actions moral, or him anything but a monster.. but, without this right, sometimes people who are not guilty would end up in jail, and some true injustices would never be redressed. We pay the price in such idiocies as this, in trade for, eventually, having a better, and more just world. A world that you, and your narrow idea that “no one” has the right to question tradition, or ethics, or morality, or even human nature, because.. **you** think its all nicely spelled out in the Bible, will never create. Why? Just one simple reason – Muslims think the exact same way they do, and their greatest contribution in recent memory to the “moral fabric” of this world has been a decline into terrorism, the murder of women, destruction of historical monuments, and a absolute certainty that “god” will fix everything, if people would just “properly” follow his word. Not all of them or even most of them, mind. But.. the ones that are doing so are the ones, like you, who are “obsessed” not with leaving each other and their neighbors bloody alone, and finding a sensible path between “all” values, but in asserting, like you, that there are some sort of clear, perfect, obvious, and perfect, set of godly ideas, which everyone “meant” to follow, and everything is screwed up because no one is following them.
Ironic then that when people die, or are kept poor, or are mistreated, abused, lied about, villainized, oppressed, or warred against – its always one group of clowns that are “convinced” they have one perfect idea about how the world should work, and people should act, attacking everyone that doesn’t fit this narrow minded view of the world. Its never the, “Just leave me the F alone to live my life, and I will leave you alone too.”, people. Nope – its the moral ones, committing varying degrees of immorality, from merely mistreating others, or outright killing them, which seem to be the ones always a) causing the problems, and b) claiming, without any guilt, that they did nothing wrong.
Why is that? Why are people like you *never*, *ever* better than, and often worse, than those like me, who reject the whole edifice of absurd anthropomorphisms, and attempts to create, “all knowing gods”, who, oddly, always agree with their followers, no matter which contradictory, and often mutually distrusting, cults they belong to, and, when thwarted, always seem to act like spoiled children (thus making the slightly less childish followers seem adult by comparison, when they drop a bomb on a city, for the people’s own good, instead of cursing a fig tree..)? Why are you people not better than all the heathens and apostates, if there is a single scrap of unique value, truth, or morality in “god” philosophies?
How exactly is living with convictions which run completely opposite to the mainstream of society NOT a lifestyle? I suppose you could argue it isn’t a *specific* lifestyle. But neither is just about any of the other “lifestyles” for that matter. And I suppose in a world where there was no external Judgement, and no social pressure to be a certain way, then atheism wouldn’t be a lifestyle either.
Dinner at a friend’s house where prayers are said and you bow you head, not in religious contemplation, but in respect for the people in the room, or perhaps fear of being “outed” certainly feels like a lifestyle. Guarding your words around distant religious relatives who you don’t want to offend senselessly, that feels like a lifestyle. Spending Sundays sleeping in and only observing calendar holidays where you get out of work so you can get some grocery shopping done, or maybe volunteering to work on religious holidays so your co-workers can take it off, feels like a lifestyle. Dedicating part of your week to reading about new discoveries in science and technology and studying up on evolution and genetics so you don’t make a fool of yourself in that inevitable debate with some creationist on the warpath, that feels like a lifestyle. Heck, just knowing you are going to eventually find yourself in that debate feels like a lifestyle. Teaching yourself how to be independent and to think independent in a society filled with what sometimes seems like unquestioning followers, isn’t that a lifestyle? Throwing dinner parties with friends where religion and philosophy and science and politics are open and welcome topics, and not things to avoid, isn’t that a lifestyle? Raising your children to either doubt religion altogether or giving them space to make their own decision, lifestyle or ontology? Being that kid in school who protests the Pledge of Allegiance and the Morning Prayer and gets ostracized and picked on for it by students and teachers and parents alike, is that really just an ontological position? Fear of being discriminated against by bosses, coworkers, and first dates when they find out you’re a Godless Heathen… none of that sounds like ontology to me.
You can believe in or doubt Free Will, either as a religious person or as an atheist and it’s just an ontological position that doesn’t manifest itself in how you live or how you treat others or how others treat you. You can’t decide that you don’t believe in the Eternal Creator of all of time and space whom 80% of the people who live in your country not only believe in, but believe they have a personal connection with, and that not impact how you live your life.
You can believe in or doubt Free Will, either as a religious person or as an atheist and it’s just an ontological position that doesn’t manifest itself in how you live or how you treat others or how others treat you. You can’t decide that you don’t believe in the Eternal Creator of all of time and space whom 80% of the people who live in your country not only believe in, but believe they have a personal connection with, and that not impact how you live your life.
P Dempsey, my lack of belief in any form of deity has had actually very little impact on my life. You cannot assume that your experiences hold true for all. My lack of belief is just a matter of fact and not something that colors every aspect of my life; it is not the basis for my “lifestyle” nor is it the basis for how I view the world or think.
It is simply where I stand on the issue of God(s) and religion. Do I sometimes get into debates regarding my beliefs (or lack there of)? Sure, but I also get into debates regarding other positions and opinions I hold as well.
Lisa Gamble, certainly my atheism doesn’t “color every aspect of my life” … it doesn’t mean I drive a car differently or eat breakfast differently, but neither does most of the things that people call “lifestyles”. Do homosexuals brush their teeth differently that heterosexuals? Vegetarians don’t live their lives any differently than any one else except that they don’t eat meat. The definition of “lifestyle” that’s being expressed here isn’t one that ANY “lifestyle” I can think of matches except for the most extreme examples.
My point was that compared to the 80% of the people in this country, atheists DO live a different life… unless you are saying that you do pray before meals or when anyone you know gets sick, attend church on Sundays, send money to televangelists, or worry about whether the thing you did last weekend might be a sin? because those would be odd habits for an atheist. 😉
My point was that compared to the 80% of the people in this country, atheists DO live a different life… unless you are saying that you do pray before meals or when anyone you know gets sick, attend church on Sundays, send money to televangelists, or worry about whether the thing you did last weekend might be a sin? because those would be odd habits for an atheist. 😉
P Dempsey, I think you and I simply see/define “lifestyle” quite differently. If I am reading you correctly, you view the absence of the things you listed in my life as something that creates a large schism between my “lifestyle” and that of a believer. I view it as something small with no more significance than say the fact that I golf and my best friend does not.
Let me see if I can illustrate my view in a way that would help you better understand my meaning. My husband and I are both atheists, our next-door neighbors—and good friends—are both religious (quite religious in fact), but our “lifestyles” are far more similar than they are different. Yes, they practice their faith by attending church and praying, and we do not, but beyond that our daily lives and how we conduct them are filled with the same types of things and the same values. We all belong to our neighborhood watch group, we all help each other out with family concerns (sitting for their children when needed and them checking in on/sitting with my 95 year old mother-in-law who lives with us), we all lend a hand with each other’s household/yard projects, we socialize together…etc…etc. Our differences in beliefs do not preclude us from sharing very similar lifestyles.
Who the hell doesn’t love their kids and their grandparents? Name one “lifestyle” group who doesn’t. Please. Otherwise please stop trying to disagree just for the sake of trying to disagree, or to try to make yourself out to be more of a saint than me or anyone else. Just because you love your children and your grandparents doesn’t mean you have the same life experiences as Christians who just happen to love their children and their grandparents. Do you pray over your children or your grandparents? Do you regularly consider what life will be like for them after death? Because I think you will be hard-pressed to find a religious person who when caring for elderly members of their family isn’t confronted with deep personal moral struggles dealing specifically with an afterlife. Old age and death is a dramatically different experience for someone who believes that the dying will live on after death and someone who doesn’t… how could it now be?
Who the hell doesn’t love their kids and their grandparents? Name one “lifestyle” group who doesn’t.
P Dempsey, I have to question whether or not you actually read my response to you as it did not contain one word about loving one’s children or grandparents.
Please. Otherwise please stop trying to disagree just for the sake of trying to disagree, or to try to make yourself out to be more of a saint than me or anyone else.
I am not disagreeing with you “just to disagree” or to make myself out as “better” than you or anyone else. I am disagreeing with you because you and I seem to define “lifestyle” quite differently and we also disagree on the how greatly or how little non-belief sets us apart from believers. In other words, I am disagreeing with you for the very plain reason that I completely disagree with your thoughts concerning an “atheist lifestyle”.
Just because you love your children and your grandparents doesn’t mean you have the same life experiences as Christians who just happen to love their children and their grandparents.
I do not have children, and my grandparents have all been deceased for many years so I cannot begin to fathom why you keep bringing this up as I have said nothing about either.
Do you pray over your children or your grandparents? Do you regularly consider what life will be like for them after death? Because I think you will be hard-pressed to find a religious person who when caring for elderly members of their family isn’t confronted with deep personal moral struggles dealing specifically with an afterlife. Old age and death is a dramatically different experience for someone who believes that the dying will live on after death and someone who doesn’t… how could it now be?
Apparently, to you, differences in how one may think regarding death equate to a different “lifestyle” for me it does not. That makes neither of us “right” or “wrong” simply different in regard to what we think constitutes a “lifestyle”.
*not* be.
Sadly these are the problems of being a non-believer living in the US. These kinds of things don’t happen in Australia unless you have particularly annoying relatives but that can be fixed. Religion still has more political influence than I would like but things like kids at school telling your kids they are going to burn in hell just don’t happen. They would just get laughed at for taking religion too seriously.
Doing what wrong? Living? Jeez, one of the things I really enjoy about being an atheist is that I simply don’t have to worry about whether or not I’m living up to some ridiculous standards. One of the hardest things on the road is giving up externalized shame and learning how to ignore Judgement. What that mostly means is teaching yourself how to not internalize other people’s shame and guilt and hate and just be content with being yourself. Easier said than done, and it’s a never-ending struggle… especially on the internet.
I agree with that. One of my favorite parts about leaving the faith was finally, finally being able to ignore the thousand different voices screaming at me, “You’re doing it wrong.”
Every denomination has their own understanding of what it means to be a Christian. Exactly the things you must believe, the attitudes you must take, the specifics of how you must pray. No matter what problem you have, it’s not because there’s a problem with Christianity itself. It’s because you weren’t doing some thing which they find obvious. You were doing it wrong.
//Every denomination has their own understanding of what it means to be a Christian.//
No offense, but I had to chuckle when I read that statement. Do you know how many different definitions of “atheism” I’ve heard in the last 19 years? About one for every atheist I’ve ever tried to discuss issues of life with.
Atheists like to present this united front filled with liberated overcomers who live in emotional and philosophical bliss. Um…nice try.
For those on the fence and wonder about these things, atheists live in a great amount of uncertainty and fear, just like every other human being. They imagine they are “free” of a moral code, but in actuality they are bound to the same moral laws giving by the same Moral Law Giver that the rest of the human race is bound to. They imagine such freedom actually makes them happy, but all one has to do is look at the noted atheists of the past and see if they lived in such happiness and bliss. Go ahead, research it.
Atheists have a free-will, as every human does, and they can resist and even violate that law. But not without consequences. Even if they imagine it otherwise. Reality is reality, no matter the level of denial.
In asserting atheists “imagine they are ‘free’ of a moral code”, are you implying that atheists are implicitly without morals? Or simply free of your moral collar? I don’t get offended by much, but this one burns.
I await your response.
Not quite accurate, Scott. I’m not implying atheist are without morals. They simply believe they are not bound by any moral code beyond themselves. But that’s simply not true. None of us lives however we want to. We are all bound by a moral code that is etched in our God-given consciences.
Honestly, there is no real moral “right” or “wrong” unless there is a Moral Law Giver.
I disagree with you, Paul. And my name is spelled with one T.
That’s fine. You have that right and I wouldn’t take it from you. Thanks, ScoT. (Sorry about the misspelling of your name.)
You couldn’t take it from me if you wanted to. And that T is not capitalized.
My name is Scot.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
LOL. Got it! I capitalized the “T” to emphasis that I got it. Got it?
As for my ability to remove your outspoken opinion, you’re right. I couldn’t. I believe in freedom of speech. But there are countries in this world supported by atheism where you would not be so vocal. You should thank God for the freedoms you have in America (if that is where you live). They didn’t come from secularism and atheism. Under an atheistic worldview (and, yes, it’s a worldview) there are no such things as “rights” or “free will.” It’s survival of the fittest. Even for human animals.
Of course the problem with Paul’s thinking is he asserts there must be a “law.” Sounds more like Plato’s theory of forms: Paul creation of a graven (and craven) “God” without substance, with Paul’s likely source of “God” being and authority projection Paul has from a childhood relationship. “Law”.is a human (and Paul’s) invention..
Todd, show me true morality without law. Give me an example.
How about you give us a real example of where the law came first, I mean, which won’t make even many believers laugh their rear ends off?
Because, seriously, a law has to make sense, and it you can explain why it does, then you have, by definition, explained how someone could come up with the moral code *first* then construct a law for it. Even funnier would be if you try the whole, “Bible law as translated into Secular Law”, joke, because there is not one bloody law on the books, except maybe in some of the worst counties in the US, which has any connection to Biblical Law, as it was actually written, without numerous changes, additions, subtractions, retraction, and even exceptions, tacked on to it. And, huge numbers of them directly contradict said law, precisely **because** we have figured out that what is moral is not what some hermit thousands of years ago said it should be, and often, not what any priest, today, ever said god “really meant”, instead.
//we have figured out that what is moral is not what some hermit thousands of years ago said it should be, and often, not what any priest, today, ever said god “really meant”, instead.//
Great! So here’s your chance to tell a theist what morals are. I mean, if you’ve figured out what they are NOT, surly you know what they are.
Define “morals” and then tell me who should obey them.
Paul, Morality is provisional. You are correct that morality has no laws. For example, if I refrain from murdering my neighbors, (chances are) it provides me with security from the same. Todd
>
But is murdering your neighbors, by definition, “wrong”? Is it “immoral,” and if so, why? Why not murder them all and become king of your street? What’s wrong with that? Doesn’t it remove the possibility of one of them turning “bad” (whatever that is) and murdering you even though you have protected him?
Only a thing descended of baboons would believe that a limited rationality to match patterns and capricious ability to project certainty describes law.
I answered your question before you asked it.
Todd
>
Sorry, but I don’t see an answer to my questions. Feel free to answer them, though.
Sorry, but I don’t see an answer to my questions. Feel free to answer them, though.
Speaking of not answering questions, Paul, I left a few for you in my post that you seem to have overlooked. 🙂
Feel free to post them again, please. I’m getting a lot of reposes from different people.
Oh, and feel free to answer my questions. 🙂
Okay, Paul, since you missed them:
Paul, why would you expect people to share the same opinions regarding “life issues” simply because they happen to share the label of “Atheist”? The only thing that can be said of all atheists is that we lack a belief in any form of deity…that’s it. How that lack of belief plays out in one’s life is solely dependent upon the individual.
Where on earth do you get this ridiculous notion that atheists live without a moral code?
Paul, you have a rather twisted idea of what atheism is and what makes an atheist happy. Here’s a scary newsflash for you: what makes me happy as an atheist is probably, by and large, the same things that make you happy as a believer (aside from religion). What makes you assume that a difference in beliefs regarding religion/god(s) automatically means great differences in all areas of life?
So me mentioning the probability that if I cooperate with my neighbors, they’ll cooperate with me went right past you; as the work of a Christian is condemnation?
Why would I want to be king of the steer? That doesn’t motivate. And it sounds dangerous and antisocial.
Todd
>
//So me mentioning the probability that if I cooperate with my neighbors, they’ll cooperate with me went right past you; as the work of a Christian is condemnation?//
It didn’t go past me at all. That’s why I responded with the questions I did (which you still haven’t answered, by the way). Your scenario is based on huge assumptions, because you’ll always have that neighbor (or two or four) who could care less about your “cooperation” and will try to dominate the rest. Why is that neighbor “wrong,” be definition?
//Why would I want to be king of the steer? That doesn’t motivate. And it sounds dangerous and antisocial.//
Because someone always does. That’s nature and you believe we are just higher animals, right? But my question wasn’t about you becoming king of the steer. My question was why would it be wrong for you to kill your neighbors and become king?
Motivate? LOL. Sorry, if we’re just higher animals why motivate anyone but myself? Based on what we see in the animal kingdom not a single atheist should complain about selfishness.
You see, what I have always found is that folks who reason like you are always trying to bring Christian morality into their own definition, whether they realize it or not. What I’m trying to do is force you to be consistent to your own beliefs.
In whose (Paul’s) small mind do my beliefs need to be consistent? I said “no laws,” and I have yet to see where does anything but assume absolute certainty. If I don’t kill my neighbors they probably won’t kill me. If a single one try’s to dominate, the neighborhood, society, manages that.
Why ask such anxious questions, Paul?
>
// If a single one try’s to dominate, the neighborhood, society, manages that.//
So then it’s survival of the fittest, right? And if that violent neighbor gets a few of your neighbors on his side and goes after you, you can’t condemn him at all. He’s just taking advantage of your weakness, which is perfectly natural. We see it all around us in nature.
But is murdering your neighbors, by definition, “wrong”? Is it “immoral,” and if so, why? Why not murder them all and become king of your street? What’s wrong with that? Doesn’t it remove the possibility of one of them turning “bad” (whatever that is) and murdering you even though you have protected him?
Paul, morality is relative and it is a human construct. It developed in order for people to be able to live and work together to survive as a species. Morality exists (and did exist) in every society regardless of whether or not that society holds belief in your god, another god, several gods or no gods.
//Paul, morality is relative and it is a human construct.//
Relative to what?
Relative to what?
Relative meaning that one’s moral concepts are mainly dependent upon the society and era that you live in.
//Relative meaning that one’s moral concepts are mainly dependent upon the society and era that you live in.//
Ok. So in any era of history, and within each individual society, that society’s morality was “good,” no matter how that was defined or what that consisted of?
Ok. So in any era of history, and within each individual society, that society’s morality was “good,” no matter how that was defined or what that consisted of?
Not sure what you are trying to ask here, Paul. Are you asking if the morals of all societies in all eras would be ones that we, today, in the U.S. would deem as “good” or are you asking if the societies, themselves, deemed their morals as “good”?
I’m thinking a world governed by “laws” is consistently brutal with no “good.” Not to mention Paul’s problems of cherry picking the past to confirm a belief.
>
Oh, my! Todd, you live right now in a world governed by laws, and there are laws because mankind can’t govern himself. Tell me where you can go on this entire earth where you won’t be governed by someone else’s law.
Oh, my! Todd, you live right now in a world governed by laws, and there are laws because mankind can’t govern himself. Tell me where you can go on this entire earth where you won’t be governed by someone else’s law.
Paul, laws are mankind governing themselves.
Has been all along, Lisa. 🙂
Todd
>
Todd, I think I’m missing something here….maybe I’m just tired 🙂
//Todd, I think I’m missing something here….maybe I’m just tired :-)//
I’m missing something, too, Lisa. Todd answers to my questions. He seems good at avoiding them.
I hope to log on tomorrow morning and see that he actually answered them. We’ll see.
Or… there is always the real possibility you don’t understand my replies. I’m not sure which question I left “unanswered,” and I really don’t care.
Todd
>
You are right! I missed one… If society rises against you; you’re dead. Laws don’t stop that.
Todd
>
Todd, laws don’t stop anyone who is bent on violating the law. All the law does is state what is considered “right” or “wrong.” It’s those hired to enforce the law that can stop an uprising. The law says “guilty,” the enforcer says “pay the consequences.”
For example, God’s law, in part, is the 10 Commandments. That law is perfect and every human being that has ever lived has violated those laws, you included. Therefore, you are “guilty” of breaking God’s law and are a rebel against him. Your denial of this fact means nothing. (Nearly every criminal behind bars is not guilty. Just ask them.) The Law says your “guilty,” and the enforcer (God) will pass down your sentence.
At this moment, you stand under the judgment of God and some day you will be brought before him to answer of your rebellion. Unless you repent and accept God’s payment for your rebellion–the death of his Son, Jesus Christ–you will spend eternity in hell of your crimes against Deity.
But deliverance is free and available to those who acknowledge their transgressions and believe the Gospel. You have until your last breath and then it will be too late. My prayer is that you trust Jesus Christ before it’s too late. Hell is not a place you want to go, and denying its existence will not change the fact that you’ll be there the moment you die.
“It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” -Hebrews 10:31
Paul: > > Todd, laws don’t stop anyone who is bent on violating the law. All the law does is state what is considered “right” or “wrong.” It’s those hired to enforce the law that can stop an uprising. The law says “guilty,” the enforcer says “pay the consequences.” >
A great indication that laws are unreal and merely humans projecting authority. You are making the rest up Paul. Arguments are not evidence.
>
Paul, is Heinz doing the right thing? Why?
“A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife.”
>
For example, God’s law, in part, is the 10 Commandments. That law is perfect and every human being that has ever lived has violated those laws, you included.
Lol Ah, getting into comedy now are we? 2/3rds of those “laws” are just saying the same stupid thing, in different ways, one of them (about killing) is violated by **everyone**, everywhere, including people defending themselves from people trying to do it to them (it really doesn’t help if you remove the “kill” and replace it with “murder”, because them even the Bible basically goes off the rails, and tries to claim that, as long as you are *sure* god told you to do it, its not murder, which, in the end, just means all of the priests agreed god wanted it), and the rest is just nonsense. None of it is taken seriously as a “source” of modern law.
Lisa, We are both missing Paul’s vision.
Todd
>
Well, in a way. But it’s a body of people in government that establish laws and enforce them on those who choose to obey or disobey them. Either way we are still under some type of moral law.
Government is just an idea, like “God,” and also like “God,” government is provisional, not absolute. “God” is just people provisioning their lives with old government. Todd
>
Well, in a way. But it’s a body of people in government that establish laws and enforce them on those who choose to obey or disobey them. Either way we are still under some type of moral law.
Yes, Paul, we live under man-made laws that codify our moral concepts. As our moral concepts change, so do our laws.
Ok, Lisa, let me try to explain what I’m getting at another way. Maybe I’ve not been clear.
Morality cannot be relative to an era or society. Unless there is a universal right or wrong, then nothing can be called “right” or “wrong,” because the terms are ever-changing.
For example, in the 18th century slavery was accepted as a normal way of life in most of the world’s societies. Relatively speaking, only a handful saw it as “evil.” Today, however, the majority of the world sees it as evil. So, was it really evil or not, and who decides that?
Today we view something like pedophilia is considered evil or “immoral.” Fifty years from now it may be accepted in society like homosexuality is today. So, today it’s “evil” and tomorrow it may be “good.” So which is it really?
You see, without a universal standard for right or wrong there really isn’t either. That’s confusion and it’s played out today in this era amongst the varying cultures of the world. Who’s morality is more “right” the West’s or the East’s? If you say “both,” then you can’t point the finger and condemn anything at all. You can’t say the treatment of women in eastern cultures is bad or wrong, because they don’t see it that way. You have to allow it to be “good” because they see it that way. But your conscience says it’s wrong. So how do we determine what is true, right and good, or evil, wrong, and bad?
The confusion is erased when a universal Law Giver who defines right and wrong is acknowledged. When we wonder what is right or wrong we simply have to look at the Law Giver for direction and go from there. That is the more logical and reasonable worldview.
Paul, I addressed most of what you state in my other post to you, but this point was absent from your post last night.
The confusion is erased when a universal Law Giver who defines right and wrong is acknowledged. When we wonder what is right or wrong we simply have to look at the Law Giver for direction and go from there. That is the more logical and reasonable worldview.
Paul, given that the “morality” defined in the Bible changes within the book itself and has changed in practice by the body of believers throughout the ages, shows that your premise that “morality” and “right and wrong” are unchanging absolutes is flawed.
Lisa, show me a change of the morality you speak of in the Bible (keeping the context and historical setting, of course).
As for people, well, their people. But where they have strayed from the Scriptures throughout history they have in error. The fault has always been with man and not the universal standard.
Lisa, show me a change of the morality you speak of in the Bible (keeping the context and historical setting, of course).
Okay, Paul, let’s look at morality as it pertains to something quite simple yet is contradicted within a single Bible chapter:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath. (Ex. 20:4.)
Make no graven images of anything…that seems like a pretty clear-cut moral law, right?
Yet the “law giver” goes against his own moral pronouncement and says:
Thou shalt make two cherubims of gold. . . . And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look to one another. (Ex. 25:18, 20.)
So much for moral imperatives and laws given by the “ultimate law-giver” being “unchanging”.
As for people, well, their people. But where they have strayed from the Scriptures throughout history they have in error. The fault has always been with man and not the universal standard.
Paul, there is no “universal standard” of morality and there never has been.
For people who think we get our morality from the Bible, and that the Bible can be trusted to tell us what’s moral and what’s immoral, I like to point this out:
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)”
Slavery wasn’t abolished until relatively recently, and the church fought against that abolition (until the tide finally turned). If not even the church could know that a thing condoned in the Bible was immoral, after all that time, how could anyone trust the Bible or church to set moral standards? We humans are able to change our minds and grow, unlike the Bible; so it’s obviously not something handed down by a divinity for all time and all places, and any arguments based on divine morality are fundamentally flawed.
Um, what group was the most responsible for the abolition of slavery both in American and England?
That’s a non sequitur Paul. When the entire country (just about) is Christian/Catholic and the official position is that slavery is moral, and then more and more people come to the conclusion that slavery is wrong, naturally those people will still be Christians/Catholics. I’m not talking about “who” stands up for what’s right, but the fact that we can get it so wrong in the first place (and most importantly”why” we get it wrong when we were _sure_ that we were right!). The Bible, and the Church, have been shown time and again to be the source of this misplaced certainty; people have recognized this in several major ways over the centuries (such as with slavery), but fail to draw the logical conclusion that the Bible is entirely man-made and its morality is that of our primitive ancestors and not a divine template for us to emulate.
Aldrisang, just out of curiosity, why do you differentiate between Christians and Catholics? Catholics are simply one of the MANY Christian denominations.
No reason really, just thought it would be more inclusive since I meant the two major branches of Christianity at the time (by “Christianity” I meant Protestant, and Catholic meant Catholic… oddly enough LOL). There are like 38,000 different sects of Christianity nowadays, so I probably won’t do that again. =)
Aldrisang, it’s not that big of a deal really. Just remnants of my Catholic upbringing (Catholic school and I can still recite mass in Latin..lol). For some reason, there is a spark of annoyance in me when some denominations bash Catholics as “non-Christian”.
It’s strange, isn’t it, the effects religion can have on a person?
Yep, very strange indeed. The most strange thing is when you hear people talking about their loving God that is going to burn so many people, and they don’t even sound like they care at all. They think it’s all their choice and all their fault if they don’t get “saved”, even if they were raised to believe in different gods. Luckily not all religious people are like that; in fact I think the majority have too much empathy to not have doubts about a deity causing such suffering to humans.
Yep, very strange indeed. The most strange thing is when you hear people talking about their loving God that is going to burn so many people, and they don’t even sound like they care at all. They think it’s all their choice and all their fault if they don’t get “saved”, even if they were raised to believe in different gods. Luckily not all religious people are like that; in fact I think the majority have too much empathy to not have doubts about a deity causing such suffering to humans.
Aldrisang, that something I have thought quite a bit about, because I have met some people that I would otherwise deem “good” people who almost take delight in the notion that not all will share in the “heaven” described by their beliefs.
For what it is worth, this is my conclusion. As humans we all have an innate need to feel (for lack of a better term) special or unique in some way; something about us that brings us love and appreciation. For some people, all they have to latch onto is their religion. Not because they lack other qualities or talents that would warrant love and admiration, but because they have never been taught to value the things that make them individuals.
That is not an excuse, but it is an explanation, and more often than not I have found it to be true. Of course, your mileage may vary.
For some reason, there is a spark of annoyance in me when some denominations bash Catholics as “non-Christian”.
I don’t know.. Its almost a complement to separate them. Catholics have an unfortunately tendency to be vastly more obstinate about the literal world of the Bible, where they haven’t explained away bits of it, and this leads to some really absurd obsessions (like their issue with birth control, or condoms), but… they don’t fall for new age woo so much, or go for the wilder more mad bits of Christianity either. As a religion, its almost sane, by comparison to *most* of the other cults derived from the same source material. They are both, simultaneously, the best example of dealing with reality, and making sure, at least in principle, that their followers understand something they have finally accepted as true, and the worst example of continuing to get it bloody wrong, because it contradicts stuff they refuse to give up on.
Well, that.. and they have a lot more money than anyone else, to go around buying up things, like hospitals, so they can use legal loopholes, given to religious institutions, to deny people medical treatments they don’t like, and stuff… But, that just makes them another in-state foreign government (i.e., corporation), with a few extra privileges.
Lisa, it’s not “bashing Catholics” to say they are not biblical Christians. It’s historical fact, and if you studied the teachings of the Catholic church (like I have and many others), you would see it too. All you have to do is compare the teachings of the RCC to the Bible to see the vast differences in major doctrines. They are not the same.
Please don’t allow your own ignorance of history to make you look foolish in insisting on something that is not true.
Lisa, it’s not “bashing Catholics” to say they are not biblical Christians. It’s historical fact,
No, Paul, it is not “historical fact” it is nothing more than the petty “my denomination is better than yours” tripe that Christians have engaged in for hundreds of years. Catholics are followers of Christ who fully believe in his divinity hence they are Christians.
and if you studied the teachings of the Catholic church (like I have and many others), you would see it too.
Gee, Paul, did you somehow miss the fact that I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic school? I have probably forgotten more about Catholicism than you will ever know.
All you have to do is compare the teachings of the RCC to the Bible to see the vast differences in major doctrines. They are not the same.
You do know, Paul, that the Catholic Vulgate is not the same as the KJV, Right? Have you read both? I have. As for differences in doctrine, most Christian denominations have vast differences in their theologies, which is why there are so many varying Christian sects.
Please don’t allow your own ignorance of history to make you look foolish in insisting on something that is not true.
Mathew 7:5 😉
//No, Paul, it is not “historical fact” it is nothing more than the petty “my denomination is better than yours” tripe //
Lisa, that comment tells me that you probably looked at boys at Catholic school instead of studying the beliefs of the church. 😉
I can assure you that I know much more about the RCC than you have forgotten, and possibly more than you have ever learned. Be that what it may, history flies in the face of your assertions.
Ever heard of the John Wycliffe (the RCC wanted to kill him, but didn’t reach him in time, and ended up burning his bones years after his death in disdain for his biblical teachings)? William Tyndale (killed by the RCC)? the Reformation? Martin Luther (RCC excommunicated him and sought to kill him)? Are you aware that such a movement would have never happened if it was all “petty” arguments? We are talking about a split that rocked history, and still impacts it today.
Sorry, but I simply know too much about the differences between these belief systems to be intimidated by your claimed education. Your own comments show that you don’t know what you’re talking about. If you want to continue to believe what you believe, help yourself. But please don’t use the worn out arguments about the “violent” history of Christianity (which almost entirely applies to the RCC) and the “no true Scotsman” rebuttal when you get schooled in church history.
I’ve always been amazed at you atheists. You’re super human. No matter how wrong and ignorant you have been shown to be, you never back down. You know everything! (Sigh.) Is that courage or stubborn foolishness? You decide.
Lisa, that comment tells me that you probably looked at boys at Catholic school instead of studying the beliefs of the church. 😉
Paul, for someone who stresses “context” you certainly do not practice what you preach. Your claim was that it is “historical fact” that “Catholics are not Christian” my response to you was in regard to that fallacy. I you think that any Catholic is taught that they are “Not Christian” and that the person must have just “looked at boys” because saying that Catholics are Christians is somehow against the Church’s beliefs, you are, to be frank, delusional.
I can assure you that I know much more about the RCC than you have forgotten, and possibly more than you have ever learned. Be that what it may, history flies in the face of your assertions.
I can only hope, Paul, that you are young. Youth would at least be a somewhat plausible excuse for your unmitigating arrogance. Since you are so well versed in Catholic theology and practice, then I am sure you can answer these simple questions: (or, at that very least, you will learn something as you Google them)
-Have you read the Vulgate? Literal or Dynamic Translation and which version?
-What is the structure of Catholic Mass? (ie: readings and responses)
-Who was Theophorus and why were his epistles significant?
-What is the significance of 1054ad?
Ever heard of the John Wycliffe (the RCC wanted to kill him, but didn’t reach him in time, and ended up burning his bones years after his death in disdain for his biblical teachings)? William Tyndale (killed by the RCC)? the Reformation? Martin Luther (RCC excommunicated him and sought to kill him)? Are you aware that such a movement would have never happened if it was all “petty” arguments? We are talking about a split that rocked history, and still impacts it today.
Yes, Paul, I am well aware of who they were. I am also well aware that the rifts that led to the reformation were—to believers—“significant” and—to them—worth dying or killing over. However, those changes in structure and doctrine—in the grand scheme of things—do amount to petty “My interpretation of these words and how they should be followed is better than yours” arguments amongst a group of people that all “follow Christ” and are all Christians regardless of which sect of Christianity they follow.
Furthermore, how does the Catholic Church’s treatment of those you mentioned in any way “historically prove” that Catholics are not Christian? You also probably want to avoid holding up Martin Luther as an example of a “good” or “true” Christian. Certainly an historian such as yourself knows why, but in case you do not: do some research on both the peasant revolt of 1525 and Luther’s “The Jews and Their Lies”.
Sorry, but I simply know too much about the differences between these belief systems to be intimidated by your claimed education. Your own comments show that you don’t know what you’re talking about. If you want to continue to believe what you believe, help yourself. But please don’t use the worn out arguments about the “violent” history of Christianity
Paul, when you are debating with someone and do not want to appear completely inept, it helps to actually address the points they raise and not go off on ranting tangents that have nothing to do with what they said. I have not, in any of my posts to you, (aside from the Luther reference above) mentioned “Christian Violence”.
(which almost entirely applies to the RCC)
Since you brought this up, I will ask you a simple logical question: Why would Catholics have committed the majority of historical Christian violence? Since you are so historically well versed the answer should be quite simple for you.
and the “no true Scotsman” rebuttal when you get schooled in church history.
You have not even remotely “schooled” me on anything. You have, however, “taught” me quite a bit about the extent of your own hubris.
I’ve always been amazed at you atheists. You’re super human. No matter how wrong and ignorant you have been shown to be, you never back down. You know everything! (Sigh.) Is that courage or stubborn foolishness? You decide.
And again, Mathew 7:5 😉
//I can only hope, Paul, that you are young. Youth would at least be a somewhat plausible excuse for your unmitigating arrogance.//
LOL! You’re a trip, Lisa. You say to me “I’ve forgotten more than you know,” and even though you have no idea of who I am, how old I am, or my learning. That’s not arrogance? But then you have the audacity to call me arrogant for correcting you and telling you that I do know more than you imagine I do.
Talk about making erroneous assumptions! At least be consistent.
LOL! You’re a trip, Lisa. You say to me “I’ve forgotten more than you know,” and even though you have no idea of who I am, how old I am, or my learning. That’s not arrogance? But then you have the audacity to call me arrogant for correcting you and telling you that I do know more than you imagine I do.
Talk about making erroneous assumptions! At least be consistent.
Yes, Paul, my one instance of losing complete patience with you and your attitude certainly outweighs the arrogance and condescension you have displayed in the majority of your posts. ::::insert eyeroll here::::
Oh, ok. So I guess that’s ok. (I think.)
Just keep in mind that you’re not the only one who has to exercise patience with people.
//Your claim was that it is “historical fact” that “Catholics are not Christian” my response to you was in regard to that fallacy.//
Lisa, it’s not a fallacy. First, the term “Christian” has to be defined to determine if someone is one. So tell me, what is a “Christian”?
//-Have you read the Vulgate? Literal or Dynamic Translation and which version?//
No, I haven’t. I have a more reliable text in the King James Version, which is a literal translation based on manuscripts that are the most reliable extant ones available.
//-What is the structure of Catholic Mass? (ie: readings and responses)//
Not being Catholic, I don’t know the structure of the Mass. I do know that the Mass is not biblical, however. There is no biblical support for the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and that is a critical doctrine in the Catholic church. They actually killed people during the inquisitions who refused to acknowledge it upon the grounds that it wasn’t biblical. The Church of England (39 articles of religion) declared: “Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions”;[43] and made Mass illegal.”
Jesus Christ died once. He does not die weekly in the Mass and the elements certainly don’t turn into his body and blood: physically or spiritually. it’s heresy. But it’s also one of the cornerstones to their salvation. That is one reason why they are not true Christians.
//-Who was Theophorus and why were his epistles significant?//
Do you mean Ignatius? I’m not sure what you’re getting at about his letters, unless you mean that he was a contemporary of St. John. But, let it be clearly said that his writings were not Scripture. They were not accepted as part of the original canon of Scripture.
//-What is the significance of 1054ad?//
Again, you’re being vague. The east/west church split (Constantinople/Rome)? Why do you ask?
//Yes, Paul, I am well aware of who they were. I am also well aware that the rifts that led to the reformation were—to believers—“significant” and—to them—worth dying or killing over. However, those changes in structure and doctrine—in the grand scheme of things—do amount to petty “My interpretation of these words and how they should be followed is better than yours” arguments amongst a group of people that all “follow Christ” and are all Christians regardless of which sect of Christianity they follow.//
That entire paragraph consists of your opinion. Nothing more. Millions have died over those changes. Millions who knew there Bibles better than mosts. I won’t allow you to make their deaths vain making their differences “petty.” They weren’t.
//Furthermore, how does the Catholic Church’s treatment of those you mentioned in any way “historically prove” that Catholics are not Christian?//
Because they killed those who wanted to remain biblical in their theology, thus demonstrating that Rome wasn’t interested in remaining biblical. When someone ceases to be biblical, they cease to be “Christian.”
//You also probably want to avoid holding up Martin Luther as an example of a “good” or “true” Christian. Certainly an historian such as yourself knows why, but in case you do not: do some research on both the peasant revolt of 1525 and Luther’s “The Jews and Their Lies”.//
I did not hold up Luther at all. I only mentioned him in light of the reformation. He had some serious issues (and I firmly believe much of it came from his time as a monk of Rome), but he followed the light he had. His bravery is unquestioned. Quite imperfect, but which of us isn’t?
//Paul, when you are debating with someone and do not want to appear completely inept, it helps to actually address the points they raise and not go off on ranting tangents that have nothing to do with what they said. I have not, in any of my posts to you, (aside from the Luther reference above) mentioned “Christian Violence”.//
It’s not ineptness, Lisa. I did actually address the point you raised. My “ranting tangent,” as you call it, was an attempt to cut you off at the pass in case you starting bringing up all the so-called “atrocities of Christianity” in history (a direction many an atheist has tried to take with these conversations). It’s not a valid argument in light of Rome not being truly Christian. They acted on their own without the approval of Jesus Christ, that is for certain.
//Since you brought this up, I will ask you a simple logical question: Why would Catholics have committed the majority of historical Christian violence? Since you are so historically well versed the answer should be quite simple for you.//
The answer lies in what Rome imagined themselves to be. The Pope was (in his mind) the “Vicar of Christ.” If he was indeed Christ’s representative on earth, then it stands to reason that everyone should bow to his edicts. If they don’t they pay the price. The problem with that thinking (and acting) is that Jesus himself never thought, taught or acted that way.
The RCC killed upwards of 65 million people in history simply because they wouldn’t bow to their rules and twisted understanding of the Bible. They were real people just like you and me. They had homes and families who loved them. And they died because they didn’t agree with Transubstantiation or because they didn’t believe salvation came through Rome only, or because they occupied a piece of land that Rome wanted to add to its vast and wealthy kingdom.
Where is that in the Christian Scriptures?
If Paul knew anything sophisticated or meaningful about history and related studies, he would know it is mere narrative. That any history is a specific (and thus biased) “slice” of the past, written in the present by the observer. The past can’t be “known” as Paul claims it, and he can’t “follow” it as he hopes to. No matter the interpretation, there is error.
No, I haven’t. I have a more reliable text in the King James Version, which is a literal translation based on manuscripts that are the most reliable extant ones available.
The “King James” version was written **for** King James, because he didn’t like the fact that the original, more accurate, version wouldn’t let him do certain things, including divorcing his wife. If you want “accurate”, you have to, with the NT, go back to the original Coptic texts, which ***DO NOT MATCH*** what is in the KJV, or, for the OT, clear back to the Jewish Torah, which, unlike Christianity, hasn’t been edited, reeditied, and mangled, over and over again, for 2,000 years, and which is the same, regardless of whether you are looking at a 6,000 your old copy, or a 200 year old one. Which doesn’t excuse the complete fictions, made up history, incorrect facts, or stuff stolen from earlier religions either, but, they still, unlike someone who thinks the KJV is accurate, believed that it was downright blasphemous to keep changing the words around, because they didn’t like what they say, or thought they would sound better, if they where simply “rephrased a bit”.
Yeah, your arrogance, and ignorance, is, I think, well past my patience too. Your like one of those people that is unaware that 100% of all scientific studies, and the data needed to prove they say what they claim they do, as well as the means to replicate them, and thus prove, if you want to, that its true, are published to *open* sources, with every single reference, data point, and detail, on places like pubmed.org, because it is ***impossible*** to conduct new science, if you have no clue how the old science was done, or if its accurate, but… there is, somehow, simultaneously, a vast conspiracy between underpaid college professors, lab assistants, random people eating Ramen noodles, because its a choice between new equipment, or good food, and yeah, the small percentage of scientists that actually *do* work for the Big Pharma, and *might* be paid some decent amount for it, to “hide the truth about all the toxins in our foods!”
The sort of people that believe this… And, you, dear Paul, I would be willing to bet, based on the law of “crank magnetism”, are probably one of them. Or, maybe its UFOs, Chemtrails, Bigfoot? I know.. you are one of the people that think some clown with a video camera is picking up “ghosts” on “Ghost hunters”, and not just seeing artifacts, which exist **because** of the way that those cameras have to take available light, and enhance it, to make it look like what the human eye sees (the human eye sees 1,000 times as much, yet doesn’t pick up strange moving spots, but the camera has to take 1,000 times less information, which, in raw form, is faded, dark, and totally useless, then run it through computer algorithms, which “attempt” to make it look normal. This produces artifacts, which only happen “in” electronic cameras.) Or, I could just be making that up, after all … atheist, so I would “want to” have ghosts not be real, right? :head->desk:
I have had enough of this absurdity.
>The “King James” version was written **for** King James, because he didn’t like the fact that the original, more accurate, version wouldn’t let him do certain things, including divorcing his wife.
You have a vivid imagination. King James never sought to divorce Anne of Denmark, to whom he remained married until her death in 1619. You may be thinking of Henry VIII, 90-some years earlier, seeking to divorce Catherine of Aragon. He did not order a new Bible translation over it.
King James ordered a new Bible translation for two reasons:
1. The marginal notes in the existing popular translation, the Geneva Bible, were too Calvinistic for James’s taste. He wanted to steer a more moderate course between Geneva and Rome.
2. A new translation of the Bible was one of the requests made at a conference James held with Puritan theologians at Hampton Court in January, 1604.
If you compare the Geneva Bible, the Bible known to Shakespeare and the Pilgrims, with that of King James, there is a remarkable similarity, with a few significant differences here and there. I have read KJV through two or three times and Geneva last year, as far as the Book of Daniel. It is not a license to James to be dissolute in his personal life.
The KJV was compiled by about 50 scholars, using the best Greek manuscripts available at the time, dating no earlier than the 9th century. They did not then know of the Codex Sinaiticus, which is superior and has enabled better translations later on.
You have a vivid imagination.
There is a difference between having an imagination and being misinformed. In any case, its still false to claim that its the “most accurate”, especially given than the Greeks already mangled parts of the original text, merged ideas, and otherwise distorted the original works. Translation is a real B. Some things don’t translate from other languages, some others, intentionally, or otherwise, can mean several things at once, with no way to tell which one was meant, etc. Some of the stuff, specifically from the OT, that got “translated” to Greek, then from there into other languages, isn’t quite as bad as saying “snow”, when referencing a long easy on the weather, as written by an Eskimo (who are said to have hundreds of different *specific* words for it, each delineating precise characteristics), but they still, unintentionally, mangled meanings. English is, frankly, even worse. The farther you get from the original language, the more distorted the meaning, unless you are being **very careful**, and like.. including whole new lines, and a translation dictionary, to explain what the *actual* meaning was. What ever King James reasons where, he was still someone trying to shoehorn an already inaccurate version, into yet another language, without any attempt, by anyone else prior, to make sure the correct meanings where preserved. Not that any of that saves the contents, which is a mix of pure fiction, and historical fiction, anyway.
//I have had enough of this absurdity.//
Thank you for sparing us.
Really, Todd? And what about when archaeology supports that narrative as historical fact, which, by the way, has happened with every piece of archaeology found relating to the Bible. The earth has never yielded anything that contradicts the Scriptural account; only supports it.
In addition, it is often possible to arrive at historical fact by comparing contemporary narratives. While there is truth to the idea that the “victors write the history,” there are ways of determining actual events with careful study. America’s history would be an example. We won the war, but there is plenty written from the British side to give us an accurate glimpse of what it was really like. Thus, we can compile a pretty good historical account of the Revolutionary War period.
Finally, there is no valid basis for assuming that every present observer would lie about what he sees or experiences with the intent of making himself or his nation look good, or an enemy bad. Is it possible? Yes. Has it happened? No doubt. But is it certain? Not at all. So unless there is valid evidence to support the idea that a particular figure in history was biased to a fault, there is no reason to make that assumption. It doesn’t take “sophistication” to understand that, Todd. Just common sense.
//If Paul knew anything sophisticated or meaningful about history and related studies, he would know it is mere narrative. That any history is a specific (and thus biased) “slice” of the past, written in the present by the observer. The past can’t be “known” as Paul claims it, and he can’t “follow” it as he hopes to. No matter the interpretation, there is error.//
Boy, Todd, I must have been tired late last night when I initially responded to your comments above, because I missed the elephant in the room: God.
If the Bible is divinely inspired, as many believe it is, by an all loving, all powerful, all knowing, and all just God, then it’s not only accurate history, but it’s 100% right (morally, spiritual, etc).
The biblical writers were merely pens in the hand of an all wise Author. It’s 100% true.
Paul,
What you “believe” is false. “God” doesn’t make the “Bible” more (or less) true. The book is narrative of events captured from single author perspectives. By definition, those are limited, because a single author can’t provide the “Truth” of what is happening at any given time. This is not hard to understand. Nothing in the world comes labeled “record this” so humans chose the particulars of events to record. No single record of anything can be “Truth.” All language is abstracted from the reality it intends to describe. Hope as you may, the Bible does not give a fully and complete true account of the past.
Lucky, we live in a nation where such “belief” is not protected, only expression.
>
//What you “believe” is false. “God” doesn’t make the “Bible” more (or less) true. The book is narrative of events captured from single author perspectives. By definition, those are limited, because a single author can’t provide the “Truth” of what is happening at any given time. This is not hard to understand. Nothing in the world comes labeled “record this” so humans chose the particulars of events to record. No single record of anything can be “Truth.” All language is abstracted from the reality it intends to describe. Hope as you may, the Bible does not give a fully and complete true account of the past.//
Todd, you’re missing the point. If God directed the authors of the Bible (as I and many others believe he did), then there are no limitations. It’s a puzzle with each piece unique in itself, but overall making a beautiful picture. There are many instances in the Bible of God saying to the authors “record this.” Revelation 1:11 (Jesus speaking to St. John) “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, WHAT THOU SEEST, WRITE IN A BOOK…” (emphasis mine)
You are right in a measure with non-inspired historical writings, but not when it comes to a divinely inspired writing. Even though you don’t believe the Bible is inspired, you have to agree with the logic and reasoning of my argument if it were inspired. If God really did write the Bible the historical account is absolutely true, even if not necessarily “complete.” (Imagine the size of the library if every human detail was recorded! Consider John 21:25, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.”) But there is no doubt it would be 100% true.
//Lucky, we live in a nation where such “belief” is not protected, only expression.//
Please clarify what you mean by that statement.
The Bible is a textual construct, so it is limited in the same way that all texts are limited. “God ” could never “direct ” a complete record of events, because a single human could never write such a thing. “Truth” develops from MANY sources, far more than the limited accounts recorded in the Bible. The Bible is so full of factual errors and contradictions, straight out bald faced illogic, that it is clearly not inhaled of God, but rather the views and subjective experiences of poorly informed “believers” like yourself. The authors of the book, your namesake, Paul, even says they “see darkly now.” Obviously, not an “inspired” position at all. You are not using any sound or valid logic Paul. That you “believe” is absolutely irrelevant. Drunken sailors “believe.” And even more importantly your “belief” applies only to yourself in the context of a religious faith. The rest of us are free to use logic, evidence and reason and reject, critique and belittle your “beliefs” when you express them in public. And I am happy to oblige. Our Constitution goes to great length to ensure no set of beliefs are privileged or protected. Expression is protected, but to hold a dogmatic belief as you do Paul – this is not protected a single iota. At the end of the day, you are nothing but a dog barking at the Moon.
>
I should not have to point out John was obviously hallucinating, much in the same way Paul is. Mere words can’t be true. Truth, if exists, is like cause, if it exists: both must be material to have any value.
Put is this way: if the “Truth” is that Jesus lived and died as material fact, then “belief” in that fact does not matter. Knowledge of fact does not change fact. No matter how much a fanboy Paul wants to be of his religion, or his personal need to be the authority of his faith, and however Paul’s control issues manifest regarding interpretation, the fact remains the same. From this perspective, it is easy to see how Paul is not driven by knowledge, but instead a deep and prolonged doubt in “fact” he claims is true.
>
For instance: The Bible records that not all Christians believed the “same thing.” In your interpretation Paul, you fail to note the ambiguous and non uniform ways Christianity appears in the text. Instead, you use a monolithic and authoritarian interpretation that ensnares, not from “God,” but is rather a projection of your own personality.
It looks to me like Paul claims “faith,” but fails to realize that his personal “faith” is entirely subjective and irrational.
>
//For instance: The Bible records that not all Christians believed the “same thing.”//
Exactly where in the Bible are you referencing?
//In your interpretation Paul, you fail to note the ambiguous and non uniform ways Christianity appears in the text. Instead, you use a monolithic and authoritarian interpretation that ensnares, not from “God,” but is rather a projection of your own personality.//
Todd, give me an example of this “ambiguous and non uniform ways Christianity appears in the text.” My interpretation (which is help by millions past and present) comes from simply reading. I take it at face value.
//It looks to me like Paul claims “faith,” but fails to realize that his personal “faith” is entirely subjective and irrational.//
Only in the realm of your opinion. My “faith” is the faith that has withstood tremendous persecution from Caesars to Popes. My “faith” is the faith that built and undergirds the United States of America, and if you live here you enjoy the blessing of being able to espouse your atheism without reproach BECAUSE of the Christianity that America is built upon. There are many nations in this world that would not tolerate your ire against God and would kill you for it. You should thank HIM for allowing you to live where you have such freedoms.
What I have is not irrational at all. The irrational belief of atheism is held by only a handful of people (like yourself) who are the epitome of the “blind leading the blind.” It’s not even natural. God calls you a “fool,” Todd.
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” -Psalm 14:1
//Exactly where in the Bible are you referencing?//
Read any of the apostles recording the divergence of belief in Early Christianity Paul.
//Todd, give me an example of this “ambiguous and non uniform ways Christianity appears in the text.” My interpretation (which is help by millions past and present) comes from simply reading. I take it at face value//
You don’t… and moreover you cannot “take it at face value Paul.” In reading it, you are creating the narrative, Paul. There is no objective “meaning thing” in the Bible, no matter much you wish for it.
//Only in the realm of your opinion. My “faith” is the faith that has withstood tremendous persecution from Caesars to Popes. My “faith” is the faith that built and undergirds the United States of America, and if you live here you enjoy the blessing of being able to espouse your atheism without reproach BECAUSE of the Christianity that America is built upon. There are many nations in this world that would not tolerate your ire against God and would kill you for it. You should thank HIM for allowing you to live where you have such freedoms.//
America, politically, was not built on Christianity. Our political nation is a product of the Enlightenment. That you claim such things just reveals that you are not capable of reasoning critically and from the evidence. Personally, I’d be aghast, but satisfied: to see millions of dead American Christians piled high before I live in a right-wing Christian theocracy would be just fine. However, the truth is that politically, folks like you “believe” like impotent and ignorant children, so I have nothing to worry about.
Back to the First Amendment. One of the few guarantees it makes it the personal freedom of “unbelief” in excluding the state from privileging any religion. This means yours and my “belief” is not protected, nor is it dictated. America is not and never has been politically a “Christian Nation.” Even the Christians who founded this nation went out their way to make a political system alienated from the Christian religion of the time. Your nonsensical and unsupportable claims are nothing short of self-serving revisionism.
Paul, you assume a particular “God” in your discussion. That makes you irrational and ignorant. Unless you provide empirical evidence for your particular “God” you have no basis for discussion.
I wish I could list of how many folks I’ve help to “convert” from beliefs forced upon them as children, but that is private. However, I would like to thank you for allowing folks to see how silly you are in the face of fact, evidence, logic and reason: those things that modern men and women live by.
(SMH) And I’M called arrogant. Wow! LOL!!!!
I have a challenge for you, Todd. Post a single quote by any influential founding father that would cause us to think that America was built on anything but Christianity. The Enlightenment, you say? Well, well, quote them. If the “house” was built on that foundation there should be plenty of remarks by the ones who lived it.
(Pssst, this is where you say loudly “The Constitution, of course!” Nope. It’s tied in with the Declaration of Independence which contains clear references to God AND it was never meant to be a religious treatise. So you’ll have to go down a different road to get your proof. But that shouldn’t be hard since there should be plenty of evidence.)
On the converse, there are so many statements by the founders themselves, and others who lived at that time, to back up the fact that America was founded on Christianity, that if I posted them all my reply might not post for size. It would probably violate some size rule for the forum. That’s how much evidence there is.
As much as you blather on (probably in front of a mirror smiling at yourself) you certainly have proven that you’re not interested in evidence. For it certainly does not side with your opinions. If there are any historical revisionists they reside in your camp, fella.
You can come off your high horse now. No one is impressed. You’ve looked down your nose at me so much that you’re going cross-eyed and losing your common sense.
But I am glad to see that evolution has made you a much kinder, sweeter person to your fellow man. Oh, wait…!
No Paul, you ARE the arrogant one (and a narcissistic fool). Many quotes abound that support my position, but the nation was not founded on personal beliefs, but political ones.
Since the our Constitution was created during a political process, the “Christian Nation” thing would be in the notes as part of the debate. Good luck! Start looking! They debated everything else…
Go for it!
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html
It is your obligation to support your position from the appropriate resources. At no time was there any debate or discussion about “Christian Nation.”
Furthermore, that is not a debate about that past. “Christian Nation” is nothing a free American people are choosing today. And that is really all that matters to a “free people” practicing “self-rule.”
Paul, from my perspective you are one just like the assholes that abused me a child in the name of their made-up God. I’d have you locked up as a criminal, if I could.
I’m noting what as has been already noted by many others: You are a clueless, and immature swine just filled with misinformation.
//Many quotes abound that support my position, but the nation was not founded on personal beliefs, but political ones.//
Great! I just asked for one. Just one. You can’t do that?
Here is an example for my argument:
“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” -Supreme Court of Illinois, 1883
I can give you 25 or 50 or how ever many more you want. What can you give for yours (since quotes “abound”)?
Paul, you seem to be missing the point that the personal beliefs of the founders are irrelevant to the political nature of our nation. Quoting them out of the political context is inappropriate. Private belief is irrelevant in the political process.
Your quote is a single interpretation from 1883 by a state court. Again an inappropriate quote far out of context. The nation was founded in 1789, in a heated debate. Illinois was not even a state. If you want talk about the historical revisionism that occurred durning the 1880’s in the US… that would be another topic.
Paul please don’t pretend to know American history.
You’re exactly right Todd that the personal beliefs of the founding fathers (among which you could find Deists and a host of sectarian differences) are something entirely separate from the political system that they established. There’s a host of information out there, such as on — http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm — that can be used to demonstrate this. I’ll bet you anything that all that information will be ignored, though; confirmation bias is strong in this one, only seeing the thing he wants to see and not the grand picture.
“Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” (Treaty of Tripoli, President John Adams)
…and the Adams quote is IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT! (Take that Paul!)
I have to admit I’ve a BA in history. 🙂
Um, not so fast! Read my reply about the Treaty of Tripoli. You’ve been reading to many revisionist histories, Todd. Education is nothing if you’re only reading materials that support your position.
Evidence Paul.
I’m reading the materials. Yes, THEY ALL support my position. The nation is not religious, nor is is founded on Christianity.
Do you have ANYTHING to support your position? A shred?
//Do you have ANYTHING to support your position? A shred?//
Um, that will satisfy your definition of evidence? Probably not. You see, you’re committed to a worldview that evidence can’t satisfy, only belief.
I gave two quotes (and could a dozen more) from the Founders themselves. Christianity is all over our nation’s founding. You simply ignore the proof. That’s not my problem.
But, I have asked you for proof of a secular foundation, and I’ve seen nothing yet. Not even a quote (I just asked for ONE). You seem to have a hard time providing proof today. Cat got your tongue, Todd?
So I’m going to borrow a recent question given to me and give it back to you. 😉
Do you have ANYTHING to support your position? A shred?
It’s not proof of anything to claim our political nation, our government is “Christian” because SOME of the individuals who participated in the founding where Christian. There in no need to refute clams like this, since they are not supported by evidence.
As I’ve said… individual quotes are meaningless in the context you are presenting them. Personal opinion about a deity matters not, when it is a political endeavor.
Get with the program asshole.
//It’s not proof of anything to claim our political nation, our government is “Christian” because SOME of the individuals who participated in the founding where Christian. There in no need to refute clams like this, since they are not supported by evidence.//
I never claimed that, Todd. And to correct you again, MOST of the Founders were Christians. Very FEW were Deists and NONE of the influential ones were atheists. Just so we’re clear on that.
I also never said our government was “Christian.” I said it was BASED on Christian principles (well, actually, John Adams said that, but who’s he?). Dude, if you won’t believe John Adams what can I say? LOL.
//As I’ve said… individual quotes are meaningless in the context you are presenting them. Personal opinion about a deity matters not, when it is a political endeavor.//
The problem with your assertion is that I have posted a single quote that reflected the personal opinion of any Founder. I’ve given quotes that were in the context of national interest.
Are we reading the same posts? LOL.
“In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.” -John Quincy Adams
Is that personal opinion, Todd?
You know what’s sad about you having a history degree, and thus being a “historian,” in some measure? It’s that you’re not honest with history. I’m not sure I hate anything more than that when I deal with these issues. It shows a lack of character. You will twist the facts to insert your own world view. I find that repulsive.
Why not just agree with history (it’s true whether you do or not) and try to change whatever you want in your generation? You have that right in this country. But to ignore the realities of the past is sad. Real sad.
So you need to provide evidence of the public debate in First Congress on which “Christian Principles” would inform the formation of our nation. Hint: there is nothing. Do you think that comments at the bar matter too in to formation of our nation? No one voted on a “Christian Nation”
Without any evidence of that you have lost the debate, and we are not “founded on Christian Principles.” (whatever those are)
Paul, you attack, but it does not matter. You are too ignorant for this fight.
Finally, you have one more point of stupid. Our founders intentionally excluded religion from government several times in the Constitution. Explain.
And finally. You, Paul, have no idea what “Christian Nation” means. In Jesus’s words, where did he talk about “Christian Nation?” Cite it! You do nothing but offer anachronism, Paul.
Paul, it is a shame you know nothing not only of the “fact” of history, but have such trouble and cognitive difficulty understanding what history actually is. That you come here to show us your nonsense just makes me laugh.
//So you need to provide evidence of the public debate in First Congress on which “Christian Principles” would inform the formation of our nation. Hint: there is nothing. Do you think that comments at the bar matter too in to formation of our nation? No one voted on a “Christian Nation”//
Todd, the first congress opened with fervent prayer and Bible study. Historian David Barton notes, “On September 7, 1774, the Rev. Mr. Duche opened the Continental Congress with prayer, one which listeners described as “fervent,” “pure,” and “sublime.” Rev. Duche’s prayer established the precedent for a Congressional tradition which continues to this day.”
No one need to “vote” on a Christian nation. We were already one.
“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity.” -John Adams
Question: What did John Adams mean by that statement? (It’s kind of obvious, but since you deny it I’d like to know what you think it actually means.)
If the United States were a Christian nation it would be in the Congressional record. That your absurd claim was “never voted on” finishes the debate in my favor. We vote on things like that in the US, since the outset.
Please work with rigor to educate yourself next time.
>
Right! I’m sure the myriad of comments claiming our founding on Christianity by those who established the government were just random babblings. (Sigh.)
“The great pillars OF ALL GOVERNMENT and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and RELIGION. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible.” -Patrick Henry
For the final time, history is based on sources, not rationalization.
Yes, this is how ignorant you are of things.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Year Without God wrote:
> Paul commented: “Right! I’m sure the myriad of comments claiming our > founding on Christianity by those who established the government were just > random babblings. (Sigh.) “The great pillars OF ALL GOVERNMENT and of > social life [are] virtue, morality, and RELIGION. This” >
//For the final time, history is based on sources, not rationalization.//
Yes, that is a very convenient way to dismiss real history, and, yes, that is the final time. Time to move on. May God open your eyes.
He said “Real History.” Jesus Christ! Put your shit away before my dog bites it off.
From: Year Without God
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 7:48 PM
To: todd.kliewer@gmail.com
Paul commented: “//For the final time, history is based on sources, not rationalization.// Yes, that is a very convenient way to dismiss real history, and, yes, that is the final time. Time to move on. May God open your eyes.”
Respond to this comment by replying above this line
New comment on Year Without God
Paul commented on Am I doing it wrong?.
in response to todd:
For the final time, history is based
I’m all ears when you find “Christian Nation” in the official Congressional record. Everything else is there: so why not your claim? Why, because you not telling the truth.
Also, since you use the term “Christian Nation,” I’ll need Jesus’s words defining “Christian Nation” – so we can test that against the founders official actions in establishing a “Christian Nation.”
Then, you’ll need to provide some evidence that before 1789 we were not a “Christian Nation” under King George. You know, to help you establish the change from “non-Christian nation” to a “Christian Nation.” What was the material change?
Obviously Patrick Henry was not talking about Christianity, but Masonic Satanism.
Until then, you are just making claims that simply assert that “if a daddy founder said it: then it must be true.” Everyone knows the public words of a single individual in America count for nothing. We vote.
I love how you are suffering by the way. It’s just going to get worse, for you.
//I love how you are suffering by the way. It’s just going to get worse, for you.//
No. No, it’s not. If there is any suffering on my part it’s only over the sadness for your extreme ignorance of all things right, good and holy. You will bow before God some day and acknowledge with your own mouth that He is Lord. I look forward to that day.
I just don’t know how I’m going to live in Heaven with you there too. There are seats in Hell, but I can’t invite you. Those are entrusted only to special people. And it is a group vote.
I’m done. but I am going to simply state that unless some public debate about “Christian Nation” was had out the outset of our nation the matter remains private still a private matter, no?
I get you for some reason have to publicly declare for your “Team Christian.”
I’m here to let you know something sir. As much as a person declares a Christian, or a Atheist. or anything else kind of religious notion unto themselves or whatever it is… Can you take whatever it you think is Christianity away from my life? Please, I beg you! Take it back! Let me do something else! Whatever Paul feels compelled to believes is Christian he needs to put it away. I don’t want to see it. They do a great disservice unto humanity as a whole by declaring unto being something “something” that is not wholly of themselves. But I think you would find it a great challenge to search your being and find something “Christian,” except the material state of you mind. (I’ve bet him I can cast spells) not wholly understanding that language is well can be written, “just words and text,” and thus you read it the “Lords Word” and you believe “something” that does not just is not there. Period.
And your point of view changes. And you want to spend you time documenting “out there” but here I am stuck with you, doing penance.
Call the founders on the telephone. LOL!!
For those who don’t know, David Barton is not an historian, but rather, a scam artist who has been debunked as such. see:
http://www.examiner.com/article/faux-historian-david-barton-exposed-as-a-fraud
Todd, is this statement by George Washington in a political or personal context?
“Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”
Note the word “duty” and the word “all nations” (American included, obviously). In other words, “America officially has a responsibility to God to acknowledge him, obey him, and be grateful to him.” That’s an “official” statement by a government agent. And, alas!, the day of public thanksgiving (to God) and prayer (to God) was requested BY CONGRESS! Gasp! Didn’t they understand the First Amendment and “Separation of Church and State”?! I wish you around to instruct them better, Todd, because they obviously didn’t understand it. (Sigh.)
You can’t win this. Even with a history degree. The facts don’t support you. B-)
Apparently you to stupid to realize that private statements don’t matter an iota in the political context you are trying to use them. Good luck. All you are proving is you have daddy obedience and authority issues.
I’m sure you are searching the Library of Congress site wildly for the debate/discussion/even a fleeting mention during the First Congress on which sections of the Bible should inform a “Christian government.” Nothing else is relevant to our Government.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Year Without God wrote:
> Paul commented: “Todd, is this statement by George Washington in a > political or personal context? “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to > acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be > grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protecti” >
//Apparently you to stupid to realize that private statements don’t matter an iota in the political context you are trying to use them//
The problem, Todd, is that not a single statement I gave was in a private context. Every one was in the context of our nation’s founding. How that is lost on you, a person who claims to have a history degree (which I’m beginning to doubt), I don’t know.
If we were able to call a Founder on the phone and ask him upon what principles America was founded, his answer without hesitation would be “Christianity.” Too bad that even a miracle like that wouldn’t be enough to convince you.
Guess what? There is no way America was founded upon Christianity. You know why? Because YOU said so. That’s it. That’s why.
It’s clear to me that you are a sad, angry individual who hates God because of what apparently happened to you in your youth by those you trusted. That hatred has clouded your ability to think rationally, and so you resist with all your being your conscience that tells you that there is a God. You’ll never admit your inner emptiness, but it does exist. My prayer is that somehow you, at some point in your life, find out that Jesus is not the same as those who abused you. He IS love. He IS acceptance. He IS peace. He is the only One who can take the pain away.
“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden , and I will give you rest.” -Jesus Christ (Matthew 11:28)
Why is the story of “Christian Nation” not in the minutes of our government, but everything else is? Do you even know that history is “from” sources and not to confirm your belief? Are your parents siblings?
>
//Why is the story of “Christian Nation” not in the minutes of our government, but everything else is? Do you even know that history is “from” sources and not to confirm your belief? Are your parents siblings?//
Have you ever heard the term “He’s preaching to the choir”? Find out what it means and you’ll have your answer.
I’ve attended church nearly 3x/week (sometimes more) for over 27 years straight. Do you know that during the many business meetings I’ve attended, I’ve never once seen “voted on being a Christian church” in the minutes. Why? You would think that a Christian church would vote on being “Christian” in its meeting minutes.
Ahhh, Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli! I was waiting for that. What took you so long? It’s the atheist’s one hope against hope! LOL.
First, have you read the treaty? Second, do you really imagine that Article XI (which may not even be authentic, by the way) was designed to be the silver bullet for future atheists: the one, and only one, real “proof” that American wasn’t founded on Christianity? Especially when that same John Adams said the opposite? Seriously?
Maybe you should read the whole treaty and maybe you should get an understanding of the history surrounding it and why the Treaty would (if it’s real) make such a statement. It’s not as you claim.
Atheists are dishonest with Article XI. Most put a period after the first statement about American not being a Christian nation. If the entire sentence is read in context, then it’s clear that the Treaty isn’t saying that America wasn’t founded on Christianity. It’s saying that our brand of Christianity isn’t hostile to Muslims, like Europe’s brand had been for centuries. In other words, “We aren’t your enemy just because we are Christians.” That’s ALL Article XI is saying. It’s not “proof” for the atheist at all.
For those who want to educate themselves further on the real meaning of the Treaty of Tripoli and Art. XI, read here: http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=125
Article Six of the United States Constitution
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Impressive rationalization Paul. No actual evidence, huh?
Who said anything about a religious test requirement? What does that have to do with anything? That’s not proof of America’s secular roots. If anything, it’s simply proof that they weren’t going to be sectarian (i.e. Baptist, Methodist, Congregationalist, etc.). That’s all. That’s the extent of it.
You’ll have to do better than that.
//Paul, you seem to be missing the point that the personal beliefs of the founders are irrelevant to the political nature of our nation. Quoting them out of the political context is inappropriate. Private belief is irrelevant in the political process.//
That’s not true, Todd. It is entirely illogical for a devout Christian, in a nation that was high 90% devout Christian, to enact laws that had no basis in Christianity. The proof of that were the statements by the Founders themselves. We aren’t talking about proclamations of personal faith. We are talking about proclamations from those who founded the country about the foundation that they founded it upon.
For example, when John Adams said, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were … the general principles of Christianity,” he wasn’t taking bout his, or anyone else’s, personal faith. He was clearly talking in a national sense.
//Your quote is a single interpretation from 1883 by a state court. Again an inappropriate quote far out of context. The nation was founded in 1789, in a heated debate. Illinois was not even a state. If you want talk about the historical revisionism that occurred durning the 1880′s in the US… that would be another topic.
Paul please don’t pretend to know American history.//
LOL! I quote a source closer to the actual events, who was referencing, not a state issue, but a national issue, and you say it’s out of context? No, Todd, you’re just wrong. The court of IL ruled as it did because that was the conclusion they came to. And I would dare you to find a statement, even by those that didn’t’ agree with them, that refutes their claim. You won’t find one. They said what they said because it’s the truth.
Let’s get a little closer to the source: “Whosoever shall introduce INTO PUBLIC AFFAIRS the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.”
– Benjamin Franklin
And introduce they did and America did change the face of the world.
Todd, I would have much more respect for atheists like yourself if you would simply acknowledge the plethora of evidence pointing to our Christian foundation, even though you desire to rid the nation of that foundation now. Atheism, secularism, and even the Enlightenment didn’t have anywhere near the impact Christianity did in forming the laws and institutions of this nation. (Atheism and secularism really had none.) To argue otherwise is to ignore history.
//Paul, from my perspective you are one just like the assholes that abused me a child in the name of their made-up God. I’d have you locked up as a criminal, if I could.//
I’m glad you’re not in charge! What crimes have I committed, Todd, that are worthily of being “locked up”?
//Read any of the apostles recording the divergence of belief in Early Christianity Paul.//
Then it shouldn’t be hard to quote one of them, right? By all means, quote away!
All it takes is a brain and critical reading skills. Look in any of the apostles, the letters that are there demonstrate the divergence of belief at the time. There is no reason to just “agree” with the authors’ positions.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Year Without God wrote:
> Paul commented: “//Read any of the apostles recording the divergence > of belief in Early Christianity Paul.// Then it shouldn’t be hard to quote > one of them, right? By all means, quote away!” >
//All it takes is a brain and critical reading skills. Look in any of the apostles, the letters that are there demonstrate the divergence of belief at the time. There is no reason to just “agree” with the authors’ positions.//
Isn’t that what you already said, just reworded? LOL.
How about you use that amazing brain of yours and give me a few examples from the “any” you speak of?
If I can’t agree with their positions how can I trust the that divergence you speak of is true?
Nope. Any of them demonstrate that the “Christian Church” practiced many divergent things. You seem to forget the whole thing is hogwash until you you can provide empirical proof of “God.”
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Year Without God wrote:
> Paul commented: “//All it takes is a brain and critical reading > skills. Look in any of the apostles, the letters that are there demonstrate > the divergence of belief at the time. There is no reason to just agree > with the authors positions.// Isn’t that what you” > Respond to this comment by replying above this line > New comment on *Year Without God * > > > *Paul* commentedon Am > I doing it wrong?. > > > in response to *todd*: > > All it takes is a brain and critical reading skills. Look in any of the > apostles, the letters that are there demonstrate the divergence of belief > at the time. There is no reason to just agree with the authors > positions.
//Nope. Any of them demonstrate that the “Christian Church” practiced many divergent things. You seem to forget the whole thing is hogwash until you you can provide empirical proof of “God.”//
Ah, I see. Yep! As I thought. Another atheist who knows all about the Bible, but has barely or never read it. Lisa, are you following? I told you this was the case for most atheists.
You can’t give me a single example, can you? Sorry, but that doesn’t help your claim. “Hogwash,” eh? LOL. The only one “diverging” here is you.
For the future, if you’re going to make claims, you can expect to be challenged on them. You might not speak of things you don’t understand. It makes you look bad.
Nice try Paul. Like I say, ALL the epistles have content showing how Christianity has many faces, and not just the fascist one you present. Paul’s problem is you “believes” and can’t see it.
Pick any letter Paul. Go ahead.
Where is my empirical evidence for “God?”
//Nice try Paul. Like I say, ALL the epistles have content showing how Christianity has many faces, and not just the fascist one you present. Paul’s problem is you “believes” and can’t see it.//
Well, then, by all means, prove it, Todd! You keep saying that, but you have yet to post a single verse, let alone “ALL,” from any of the Epistles. Here is your chance to shut me up and prove me wrong. What are you waiting for?
//Pick any letter Paul. Go ahead.//
I don’t need to pick a letter. YOU made the claim, YOU post the proof. I’ve been waiting all afternoon, but you keep avoiding me on this. Why?
//Where is my empirical evidence for “God?”//
Different topic which we can pick up another time. Right now we’re trying to help you find evidence for your claim. You seem to be having a hard enough time doing that, let alone getting tied up on another topic.
Were you by chance home schooled? I’m trying to understand the source of your ignorance.
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Year Without God wrote:
> Paul commented: “//Nice try Paul. Like I say, ALL the epistles have > content showing how Christianity has many faces, and not just the fascist > one you present. Pauls problem is you believes and cant see it.// Well, > then, by all means, prove it, Todd! You kee” >
//Were you by chance home schooled? I’m trying to understand the source of your ignorance.//
LOL, uh, no. But I wish I had been, because they FAR out-pace their public and private school peers at all levels of education.
Are you secretly hoping I’ll drop the fact that you refuse to answer your claims with any real proof by adverting the subject to ad hominem attacks?
Nice try. I suppose by now I can’t expect you to answer, can I? Attack away if it makes you feel good. LOL. We all know the truth.
“I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens.” – Thomas Jefferson
Mr. Jefferson sure didn’t think it was “hogwash.” But no doubt your more intelligent, better studied, and have a greater grasp on all of life then he did. I bet you’d make Jefferson look like an amateur. :::roll eyes:::
Jefferson was an Atheist.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html
Daddy issues much? Can’t think for yourself?
Do you not believe living Americans are free to choose how they are governed?
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl81.php
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Year Without God wrote:
> Paul commented: “I have always said and always will say that the > studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens. > Thomas Jefferson Mr. Jefferson sure didn’t think it was “hogwash.” But no > doubt your more intelligent, better studied, and hav” >
These days it is often said that the quickest road to Atheism is actually reading the scriptures. I suspect Jefferson was a couple of hundred years ahead with that idea, and thus, I quite agree with his recommendation.
The Church took the land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_Worms
We don’t bicker enough today about land and what that means.
http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hegel/right.pdf
or stuff.
The Enlightenment took it back.
“This principle that the earth belongs to the living and not to the dead… “ TJ
http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html
”But should a society of ministers, say a Church Council, . . . have the right to commit itself by oath to a certain unalterable doctrine, in order to secure perpetual guardianship over all its members and through them over the people? I say that this is quite impossible. Such a contract, concluded to keep all further enlightenment from humanity, is simply null and void even if it should be confirmed by the sovereign power, by parliaments, and the most solemn treaties. An epoch cannot conclude a pact that will commit succeeding ages, prevent them from increasing their significant insights, purging themselves of errors, and generally progressing in enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature whose proper destiny lies precisely in such progress. Therefore, succeeding ages are fully entitled to repudiate such decisions as unauthorized and outrageous. The touchstone of all those decisions that may be made into law for a people lies in this question: Could a people impose such a law upon itself? Now it might be possible to introduce a certain order for a definite short period of time in expectation of better order. But, while this provisional order continues, each citizen (above all, each pastor acting as a scholar) should be left free to publish his criticisms of the faults of existing institutions. This should continue until public understanding of these matters has gone so far that, by uniting the voices of many (although not necessarily all) scholars, reform proposals could be brought before the sovereign to protect those congregations which had decided according to their best lights upon an altered religious order, without, however, hindering those who want to remain true to the old institutions. But to agree to a perpetual religious constitution which is not publicly questioned by anyone would be, as it were, to annihilate a period of time in the progress of man’s improvement. This must be absolutely forbidden. “
Folks like Paul have lost their collective minds re who belongs to what and the basic order of things.
From: Year Without God
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 6:06 PM
To: todd.kliewer@gmail.com
quine001 commented: “These days it is often said that the quickest road to Atheism is actually reading the scriptures. I suspect Jefferson was a couple of hundred years ahead with that idea, and thus, I quite agree with his recommendation.”
Respond to this comment by replying above this line
New comment on Year Without God
quine001 commented on Am I doing it wrong?.
in response to todd:
Jeffers
One of my favorite quotes from Jefferson:
“Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.”
//“Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong.”//
Great quote! It has nothing to do with him criticizing Christianity (since he was a follow of Jesus himself), but it is a great quote.
Thanks for sharing. 🙂
You are welcome. 🙂
//Jefferson was an Atheist.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html//
From the very link you provided: “Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, THOMAS JEFFERSON, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.”
So, Todd, was he an atheist or deist? Can’t be both.
Are these the words of an atheist?
“Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.” -Jefferson (not a very atheistic OR deistic statement!)
“To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others…” -Jefferson
Let’s see, he considered himself a “Christian.” He defined that as being “sincerely attached to his (Jesus’) doctrines, in preference to all others…” (like atheism? Yeah, that would be about right.)
For good measure, let’s quote Jefferson again: “I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
I could be wrong, but isn’t it hard to be an atheist and a disciple of Jesus Christ at the same time?
Still want to stand by Jefferson being an atheist?
Oh, and from your link again: “[Jefferson] rewrote the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament and compiled his own gospel version known as The Jefferson Bible, which eliminated ALL miracles attributed to Jesus…” (emphasis mine)
Wrong! Historian David Barton points out that Jefferson “included many of the miracles contained therein, including the raising of Jarius’ daughter (Matthew 9:1), the healing of the bleeding woman (Matthew 9: 18-26) and the healing of two blind men (Matthew 9: 27-34),143 as well as including many other passages referring to the spiritual and supernatural.
Maybe you should pick another source that is more accurate and less biased? They also got it wrong about Washington (Christian) and James Madison (Christian/Calvinist). How can one believe anything in that article?
Now, for the record, I don’t think Jefferson was a sincere Christian. But that’s not for me to decide. He knows now if he was or wasn’t. You will stand before him some day and answer for the things you’ve done in this life, and you’ll be judged accordingly.
“Deism” is not the same as “Christian Nation.” Think the homosocial Freemasons.
It’s not that I don’t have a slew of individual quotes, but those are not relevant to the discussion. If the USA were founded as a “Christian Nation” it would have been voted on. But there is no evidence, or “proof,” of that, Paul.
So I’m not the one “twisting history,” Paul. It is you.
You could be honest, but you are not.
Even the Christians disagree with you Paul.
http://youtu.be/h20exd339rM
From: Year Without God
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 10:14 AM
To: todd.kliewer@gmail.com
Paul commented: “//Jefferson was an Atheist. http://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html// From the very link you provided: “Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, THOMAS JEFFERSON, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, J”
Respond to this comment by replying above this line
New comment on Year Without God
Paul commented on Am I doing it wrong?.
in response to todd:
Jeffers
I’m pretty much done with communicating with you, Todd, because you don’t know how to have a civil dialogue, but I have to challenge you for the sake of those reading, just so they don’t actually believe what you’re saying is true.
You said “Jefferson was an atheist.” I showed that he wasn’t. You replied with “It’s not that I don’t have a slew of individual quotes…”
No, you don’t.
I’m challenging you to produce a single quote to prove your claim. You have a “slew” of statements? Post them. Let’s see your proof.
Now, we’ll see who the coward is.
Actually, Lisa, Aldrisang is right about Christians and Catholics. They are separate. Catholics claim to be Christians, but when their believes are lined up with the Bible, the only manual for Christians, there is a divide. This is extremely important to remember when interpreting history. Skeptics love to point out all the “Christian” violence in history, which was not “Christian” at all. Most of it came from the Catholics (like the crusades).
Hey guys please leave me out of this one. =) I didn’t mean to differentiate them in a way suggesting that Catholics are somehow non-Christians. I do realize that Catholics follow the Pope, while Protestants are allowed their own interpretations of the Bible (or that of whatever church they choose), but I’m certainly not arguing against one or the other. Both of them, and many other religions, have been responsible for “crimes against humanity” in simply the natural in-group/out-group mentality that comes from these sorta things.
//Both of them, and many other religions, have been responsible for “crimes against humanity” in simply the natural in-group/out-group mentality that comes from these sorta things.//
99% Catholic throughout history (and, thus, they are not acting as “Christians,” for you see no such things in the Christian era in the Bible). Atheism has don’t hundreds of millions more “crimes against humanity” (and still do) than any Christian sect. It’s not even close.
You’re confusing Atheism with actual ideologies, such as of psychopathic dictators of the East. No one kills in the name of atheism, because atheism isn’t an ideology with doctrines and dogma that would lead to such killing, like “suffer not a witch to live”. It’s codified ideologies, whether religious or political, that are responsible for the majority of human war and genocide throughout the ages.
No, no, no! You’re not getting off that easy. Their atheism led them to have a proper disregard or the value of life which led to the deaths of millions. A lack of reverence for God, his word, and life has consequences.
You idiot, do you think you need to believe in God to have reverence for life? See this is why you don’t understand a thing about atheism. Humans are still humans, still have the capacity to love and cherish life and the lives of others, regardless of any religion. That you are so dismissive of people who don’t believe as you do… you just suck, you know? I’m done talking to you, as you obviously care less about others than I do.
Smart move. Paul seems like he is struggling with his own belief and want us to answer his questions. Paul, to reference the thread title: Yes, you are doing it wrong.
Yeah I blew my top a bit there, Todd. There’s only so much lunacy I can take from one person, though. =P It’s like no one cares to investigate anymore, they just share all the misinformation among themselves and repeat it with conviction (and without a care in the world).
I care enough to warn you about impending judgment from a just God. You stand as a person who’s house is on “fire” and is burning to the ground. I’m yelling for you to get out, and you’re standing in the window laughing and saying “What fire?”
And you call ME the idiot? Wow.
Your only hope is Jesus Christ. You will bow to him now during your lifetime, or you will bow after you die. But you will bow before him. Recognize your rebellion against him now, repent, and be saved. If you reject this message you will burn in hell for eternity and it will be you own rebellion that sent you there. You will point no fingers.
And yet, you don’t see the inconsistency in relegating the Bible to human origin, and man’s morality to individual societies, while criticizing slavery as immoral. How can it be immoral when it was accepted as moral, if there is not universal standard saying it’s immoral?
The slavery you elude to in the Bible, that was accepted in every culture in the ancient middle east regardless of religion or non-religion, was NOT the equivalent to the African salve trade, and abuses, that permeated the western world in recent centuries. At least not for the Jews. (The pagan nations weren’t governed by the same Scriptures, so abuses were more prevalent.)
What was written to ancient Jews only cannot be construed as an approval to nations not yet existent centuries later. It’s apples and oranges.
The slavery of foreigners was exactly the same as what we had in America. It even stipulated that you could beat your slaves, as long as they didn’t die within a day or two. Anyway I’m not going to argue that, you can Google slavery in the Bible.
I’ll make this extremely, extremely simple for you. Christianity said slavery was moral… and then it didn’t. Christians today, as always, claim they are acting on God’s will and that the morality handed down to them is absolute and unwavering. How can this be? Explain, if you will, how you can possibly claim to know what’s moral and what’s not, when Christian beliefs about morality can change _just_ as easily as non-Christian beliefs about morality? All I’m debating is that Christians have any special access or knowledge about morality that everyone else doesn’t.
Why do I need to Google something that is in the Bible itself? It’s been there for centuries for all to see. God never promoted or allowed the abuse of slaves. That WAS Jewish law. That is what they practiced. Did some abuse the law? Certainly. Humans break laws all the time. But the LAW was clear and abuse was not permitted. That’s a far cry from what African slavery was all about from start to finish (and by “start” I mean the BLACK traders in Africa who sold their own countrymen to white slave traders).
To answer your question, Christian beliefs and morality can’t change. They are either Scriptural or not. When they are not not, they are not acting “Christian” (or Jewish, in the case of the Old Testament). It’s not hard at all. The Bible is the guide, BUT there are parts of the Bible that apply to certain people groups that don’t apply to all. That’s just a fact, and anyone who understands biblical history knows this.
You’re still deflecting. Is slavery moral or not? How do you know? There’s more in the Bible saying slavery is perfectly acceptable than anything that can be construed as saying it’s not. Not even Jesus abolished slavery.
How can you say that you know what’s moral and what’s not, as a Christian? It’s a simple enough question.
Rome was in control during Jesus’ day. How could he have eradicated it when he, and every other Jew, was under the power of Rome?
Who said _anything_ about eradicating? Was Jesus kept from speaking? Was he not killed so that he’d be silenced? All he had to do was say that slavery was wrong; and that’s not the only thing he failed to say, as we’ve had to make many moral advances since that time. The Bible does not represent a divine morality.
Jesus didn’t come to reform society by his preaching against the establishment. He came to reform men. He knew the best way to reform something is to change the heart. He was successful.
And, yes, the Bible does represent divine morality. You may not agree, it most certainly does, and whole nations have been established and prospered because they were based on it (like America).
My point to you is that the slavery in the Bible is not the slavery in England and America. Atheists are dishonest with history to make them seem the same (as here): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/atheist-slavery-billboard-pennsylvania-raises-tempers_n_1342268.html
That is a misleading billiard that is lying to people about the Bible and ancient history.
Um, what group was the most responsible for the abolition of slavery both in American and England?
Paul, in America at least, the answer to that question would be Quakers a Christian sect that most other Christians of the day vilified and scorned.
That a Christian sect led the abolitionist movement does not negate that slavery was a “moral” practice in the bible. In fact, it is yet another example of what I have been saying to you all along.
Lisa, thank you for agreeing that it was the Christians who had the most impact on the eradication of slavery. And, by the way, it extended way beyond the Quakers to many other true Christian sects (denominations).
The Quakers were very influential, no doubt. But don’t dismiss the fact that other Christian denominations were extremely influential–perhaps even beyond the Quakers–who saw it finally abolished in America. Always be honest with history even if it doesn’t side with your particular viewpoint. Otherwise, you’re just deceiving yourself, and I’m sure you don’t want to do that.
So here is something for you to consider in light of the fact that you do understand that it was Christians who saw the most evil in slavery, believed God was not pleased with it, AND ACTED WITH THAT MOTIVE and saw it eradicated from their shores.
Were the Christians–all of them–really so ignorant of their of Scriptures to the point of actually going against their God in opposing slavery? I mean, if what you’re saying is true about the Bible, then God absolutely didn’t want slavery eradicated and, in fact, still approves of it and wants it today. That Christians had the completely wrong motive for abolishing slavery. Are you sure you want to propose that?
(By the way, I’ve always been amazed at atheists who, amazingly, know more about the Bible, even though most haven’t read it through once, than Christians who have read it for decades. Something doesn’t add up there. But they sure are confident. LOL.)
Lisa, thank you for agreeing that it was the Christians who had the most impact on the eradication of slavery. And, by the way, it extended way beyond the Quakers to many other true Christian sects (denominations).
The Quakers were very influential, no doubt. But don’t dismiss the fact that other Christian denominations were extremely influential–perhaps even beyond the Quakers–who saw it finally abolished in America. Always be honest with history even if it doesn’t side with your particular viewpoint. Otherwise, you’re just deceiving yourself, and I’m sure you don’t want to do that.
Paul, your question asked who “most responsible” for the ending of slavery. Given that the Society of Friends was the first to collectively as one body denounce slavery, my answer stands. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, the Quakers started the abolitionist movement to the greatest extent. As for being honest, you might want to note that William Lloyd Garrison, one of the most influential anti-slavery voices, was an anticleric.
So here is something for you to consider in light of the fact that you do understand that it was Christians who saw the most evil in slavery, believed God was not pleased with it, AND ACTED WITH THAT MOTIVE and saw it eradicated from their shores.
In other words, Paul, the Christians of the day, in spite of slavery being Biblically moral, chose to adapt their morals to their expanded knowledge of humanity and act accordingly….exactly what I have been saying all along.
Were the Christians–all of them–really so ignorant of their of Scriptures to the point of actually going against their God in opposing slavery? I mean, if what you’re saying is true about the Bible, then God absolutely didn’t want slavery eradicated and, in fact, still approves of it and wants it today. That Christians had the completely wrong motive for abolishing slavery. Are you sure you want to propose that?
Ignorant of their own scriptures? No. Did they choose to make excuses as to why slavery was moral in the Bible but not moral in their own times? Yes. The same way modern Christians do regarding things like divorce.
(By the way, I’ve always been amazed at atheists who, amazingly, know more about the Bible, even though most haven’t read it through once, than Christians who have read it for decades. Something doesn’t add up there. But they sure are confident. LOL.)
There you go making erroneous assumptions again, Paul. Most Atheists have read the Bible.
//There you go making erroneous assumptions again, Paul. Most Atheists have read the Bible.//
Well, let’s see. My assumption was “even though most haven’t read it through once.”
How many times have you read it through cover to cover?
I’ll double-dip guarantee you that most of the atheists on this board have never read it through once. I stand by my statement, which is based on 19 years of debating with people like you. It’s my experience that you have your favorite “Bible contradictions” websites that you cull from without any regard to what biblical interpretation means, historical context, or anything else. To someone like me, who has studied the Bible almost daily for over 25 years, it’s (no offense) laughable. Laughable because of the arrogant confidence atheist put forth as if they really know what they are talking about, when in reality that haven’t even read what they are criticizing. It’s sad, really.
Well, let’s see. My assumption was “even though most haven’t read it through once.”
How many times have you read it through cover to cover?
Many times, Paul, and many different versions, I have also read the Qu’ran, Gilgamesh, the Talmud El Am, the Diamond Sutra and a myriad of other religious/belief based writings and texts….have you?
I’ll double-dip guarantee you that most of the atheists on this board have never read it through once I stand by my statement, which is based on 19 years of debating with people like you. It’s my experience that you have your favorite “Bible contradictions” websites that you cull from without any regard to what biblical interpretation means, historical context, or anything else. To someone like me, who has studied the Bible almost daily for over 25 years, it’s (no offense) laughable. Laughable because of the arrogant confidence atheist put forth as if they really know what they are talking about, when in reality that haven’t even read what they are criticizing. It’s sad, really.
Paul, if how you have been interacting on this board is the result of 19 years of debating with Atheists you sincerely need to stop and rethink your strategy because most of your “debating” consists of nothing more than erroneous assumptions and quite a bit of avoidance of questions posed to you.
//Many times, Paul, and many different versions, I have also read the Qu’ran, Gilgamesh, the Talmud El Am, the Diamond Sutra and a myriad of other religious/belief based writings and texts….have you?//
Congratulations! You’re the extreme minority. And, no, I have not completely read those other religious texts, but I am familiar with many of their beliefs, having studied them.
What’s remarkable is that you’ve read and read and have not seen the clear differences between Roman Catholicism and biblical Christianity. Keep studying, though, because I can guarantee you that there differences are vast and wide.
//Paul, if how you have been interacting on this board is the result of 19 years of debating with Atheists you sincerely need to stop and rethink your strategy because most of your “debating” consists of nothing more than erroneous assumptions and quite a bit of avoidance of questions posed to you.//
Which questions have I avoided, Lisa? If I didn’t answer one it was probably because I don’t have time to read everything everyone writes. I’ve had 4 or 5 different atheists respond to me. Sorry, but I don’t have time to address them all. So it’s not that I have avoided their questions. I haven’t even read their posts. I have a life outside of this board.
Funny how Paul can’t talk about Christianity in its contemporary and evil state. They force beliefs in magic into kids by abusive means, and then claim to be “moral.” Paul, just shut your hateful ignorant trap.
>
//Funny how Paul can’t talk about Christianity in its contemporary and evil state. They force beliefs in magic into kids by abusive means, and then claim to be “moral.” Paul, just shut your hateful ignorant trap.//
It’s not that I can’t, Todd. It’s that it’s very difficult to address what is the fabrication of your own mind. You’re lying. You can’t prove a single thing you claimed as being a universal part of the biblically-based contemporary Christian church.
Of course, this is where you post something as “abusive” that probably isn’t. But go ahead, prove your claim. You boasted so you back it up.
Um, what group was the most responsible for the abolition of slavery both in American and England?
Stupid question, which is about as meaningful as trying to argue that Spanish are all conquerors, then, when someone says its not true, coming up with, “Ah, but who was it that destroyed the Aztecs? See, see!” It was next to impossible to find anyone back then that would admit to being an atheist, never mind enough of them to challenge common practices, like slavery.
However… The South, who supported it, and claimed it was right, based on *their* religion where profoundly Biblican, while the North was far more liberal. The center of government was in the North, not the South, and where more deist than anything else, and even if they seriously questioned the Biblical account, it would have been political suicide to do so. Even Lincoln, you know.. the guy that actually freed them via legislation, never found the courage to reject it outright, but he **did** the next best thing, which was create a Bible that gutted it of all supernatural phenomena, including angels, parting seas, and virgin births.
In any case, your question doesn’t lend you the defense of your position you assume it does, since you can’t ask why people with no political power, at all, and tiny numbers, didn’t step up and fix a problem, then gloat that some small fraction (most in the North believed in freed slaved, but also that slavery itself did not necessarily “have to” end entirely), of believers had the guts to go against their own religion and end the practice, while virtually non-existent, or reviled, or at least virtually powerless, people didn’t.
“Even Lincoln, you know.. the guy that actually freed them via legislation, never found the courage to reject it outright, but he **did** the next best thing, which was create a Bible that gutted it of all supernatural phenomena, including angels, parting seas, and virgin births.”
I think you’re thinking of Jefferson. I’ve read “The Jefferson Bible”, which is just what you describe… good stuff. =)
Ah, right, sorry. Yeah, was the other one. Still, point stands, even with the error, Northerners tended to be deists, Southerners, tended to be major literalists, and still are today.
Oh, dear! LOL. The Jefferson “Bible” wasn’t a Bible at all. Why don’t you all study some history instead of making claims (this one is repeated all the time) about what you don’t know? Jeesh! You people claim to be “free-THINKERS.”
Jefferson’s “Bible” included many of the miracles contained therein, including the raising of Jarius’ daughter (Matthew 9:1), the healing of the bleeding woman (Matthew 9: 18-26) and the healing of two blind men (Matthew 9: 27-34),143 as well as including many other passages referring to the spiritual and supernatural.
Why not actually think for yourself instead of regurgitating what you find on your favorite skeptic’s website and assume it’s true? I know you desire to propagate secular and atheistic values today, but at least be true to history even when it doesn’t side with your point of view (and in American history is certainly doesn’t).
Don’t be an unmitigated jerk. No one claimed The Jefferson Bible was actually a holy book. It’s something Thomas Jefferson put together for the Native Americans, methinks. It’s way less than 100 pages long (I’ve read it). Why are you trying so hard to be a jerk? Chill. If you really think something is wrong that is said, that’s okay… but you’re really pushing it, coming off poorly.
A jerk? So now you’re resorting to name calling? LOL.
I’m just trying to make sure that true history is upheld. I’ve heard this “Jefferson rewrote the Bible without miracles” argument ad nauseam for 19 years. It’s a bogus argument. Especially when the facts are that he didn’t remove all the miracles.
Jefferson’s “Bible” wasn’t really a Bible. But yet that’s what it was called when the original argument was given as “proof.” That’s misleading. Don’t name call on me because I’m exposing false history.
By the way, there is no evidence Jefferson was a “biblical” Christian, so his ideas about Christianity were wrong. (He knows better now.) But he claimed to be a Christian himself, and was not in any way an “atheist.” None of the influential founders were.
You can’t uphold true history if you’re a Christian, because you think the Bible actually represents true history. Prove there was a global flood, and we’ll start considering that your book is more than the imagination of our Bronze Age ancestors.
//You can’t uphold true history if you’re a Christian, because you think the Bible actually represents true history. Prove there was a global flood, and we’ll start considering that your book is more than the imagination of our Bronze Age ancestors.//
Hypothetical situation, so play along, ok?
You climb a mountain and when you get to the top you find marine fossils. What is your first (and logical) thought?
>What is your first (and logical) thought?
That the mountain was once part of an ocean floor, pushed up by plate tectonics. In fact, that is the origin of the Himalayas.
You have no idea how much, in that single question, you have exposed the typical Christian’s inability to reason consequentially about science. It’s an interesting coincidence that I’m following this blog at the same time that I’m reading Ortega y Gasset’s “Revolt of the Masses,” which points out that the average man enjoys the fruits of civilization while being willfully ignorant of the science that makes it possible. You’ve just proven his point.
Michael, I love you (in a completely platonic way). =) I’ve had enough of this guy, but I’ll be glad to see others put him on the right track (which he’ll probably ignore anyway).
//That the mountain was once part of an ocean floor, pushed up by plate tectonics. In fact, that is the origin of the Himalayas.//
Ha, ha! And you’re a bad liar! No, sir. The first thing any logical person would think of is “There must have been water here.” That’s obvious.
Of course atheists and evolutionists have an answer. You have an answer for every quandary. It’s a pretty complex problem and an obvious proof that water once covered the earth. The upshift theory doesn’t cut the mustard. Sorry.
Remember: having an answer doesn’t mean it’s right. Proof was asked for and given. We all have the same evidence. If you choose to ignore it that doesn’t mean it’s not there.
When scripture talks about God, it creates a graven image.
>
//Okay, Paul, let’s look at morality as it pertains to something quite simple yet is contradicted within a single Bible chapter:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath. (Ex. 20:4.)
Make no graven images of anything…that seems like a pretty clear-cut moral law, right?
Yet the “law giver” goes against his own moral pronouncement and says:
Thou shalt make two cherubims of gold. . . . And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look to one another. (Ex. 25:18, 20.)
So much for moral imperatives and laws given by the “ultimate law-giver” being “unchanging”.//
No, Lisa, it’s not “a pretty clear-cut moral law.” You’re twisting it to say what you want it to say. You’ve done what I asked you not to do: ignore the context. (And, PLEASE, don’t tell me context doesn’t matter if the Bible is God’s word. That’s stupid.)
What is the context of Ex. 20:4? Look at the verses directly before and after verse 4. Look in 20:3: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” and then 20:5 “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.”
The context is idolatry. The “pretty clear cut moral law” is “Don’t make idols and worship them.” Is that what was commanded in chapter 25 with the cherubims of gold? No. They were not made to worship. As a matter of fact, their purpose was that they would be the place where the presence of God himself would come down. That’s not idolatry.
There is no contradiction. These are the kinds of “errors” that tell me that atheists haven’t really read the Bible through, and really don’t understand it. Even someone who has read the Bible casually over the years could have figured this one out.
Your entire argument amounts to something as silly as, “Refraction wouldn’t make the sky the color it is, if god hadn’t invented the color blue,” This is a completely absurd assertion. Humans are, just like Bonobo, Chimpanzees, and a mess of other species “social”. To be social requires cooperation, to mitigate strife. The only “universal moral code” is simply that being a bloody ass is **not** a useful strategy to use when being social. The whole complicated mess we call civilization is a mish mash of this basic principle, and an increasingly “improved” understanding of our humanity, and what that means vis a vie our laws, along with an whole bloody lot of silly gibberish, tacked on by people that found that, as long as they pretended to offer something, like protection, safety, or prosperity, most people won’t, since they have no objective way to measure how much better things would be without such babysitters taking things away from them, for their supposed own good, might be, if they ripped all of the laws made by people who *don’t* do “social” very well, but instead do, “bullying”, “betrayal”, and “robbery” quite well. But, it turns out, we do need those sorts out there, doing the things that the rest of us are just not interested in being bothered with, like leading. The problem, from the beginning, and all the way up to today, is that, because the rest of us just want to be bloody left alone, for the most part, we let the “leaders” get by with some unbelievably anti-social things, including passing a lot of stupid laws, which.. ironically, everyone defends, right up until they cross one too many lines, and there is a revolt against them. The whole reason why we don’t have a Bible based government, with kings, and priests, handing down the word, and law, and instead opted for some sort of democracy, was because we are supposed to be watching the bullies, and making sure they don’t do stupid things.
***UNFORTUNATELY***, our was one of the very first modern democracies, and a) we have been too stubborn to fix some of its major flaws, and b) the others have had the opportunity to learn form the mistakes that we keep refusing to acknowledge, or fix. Because of this, for every good law there is a bad one, and for every attempt to make things better, there is someone else looking for a loophole. The only reason the US still survives, to be frank, and we are not having this conversation via encrypted communications, on a server in Sweden, or something, while the government hunts us, like happens in China, is that we are managing to keep “just ahead” of the people that think just exactly like you do Paul, that there is an “absolute morality”, and that they know what it is, and the whole of the law, including the Constitution itself, needs to be “adjusted” to force everyone to follow it. But, there is no such thing, which is why, eventually, unless we do something stupid, we *will* keep adjusting things, not until they reach some magical state of grace, but until nearly everyone is bloody comfortable with, because it mostly works, even if its impossible to ever make it somehow “perfect”.
“the whole of the law, including the Constitution itself, needs to be ‘adjusted’ to force everyone to follow it. But, there is no such thing, which is why, eventually, unless we do something stupid, we *will* keep adjusting things, not until they reach some magical state of grace, but until nearly everyone is bloody comfortable with, because it mostly works, even if its impossible to ever make it somehow ‘perfect.’”
”Never a lack of followers” to paraphrase Machiavelli. The critics keep things in order.
Where I’m sitting right now, for starters… no governance as you describe… Perhaps you are imagining things?
Todd
>
//Where I’m sitting right now, for starters… no governance as you describe… Perhaps you are imagining things?//
I don’t know where you are right now, but if in America, you’re wrong. Go outside, get in your car, and drive 100 mph down your street past a police officer, and see if you’re not under the governance of laws. LOL.
Ok, computer battery about to die. Fire away. I’ll be back tomorrow.
Well you lost that one, Paul. Better luck next time.
>
//Not sure what you are trying to ask here, Paul. Are you asking if the morals of all societies in all eras would be ones that we, today, in the U.S. would deem as “good” or are you asking if the societies, themselves, deemed their morals as “good”?//
Well, the societies themselves, and wouldn’t you have to acknowledge that those morals were, in fact, “good” in that era?
Well, the societies themselves, and wouldn’t you have to acknowledge that those morals were, in fact, “good” in that era?
Paul, the societies themselves viewed (and view) their morals as “good” and “just”, but, no, that does not mean that we, based on the point of view of our society and era, need to acknowledge them as such.
//Paul, the societies themselves viewed (and view) their morals as “good” and “just”, but, no, that does not mean that we, based on the point of view of our society and era, need to acknowledge them as such.//
Ok, but on the other side of that coin we could not point the finger at them and say “You were wrong,” because they honestly thought they were right. One hundreds years from now an entirely different society might point at us and say we were dead wrong on many things. My question is, “Who decides what is right and wrong?”
It can’t be each era and society, because they all change. They not only change with the era, but they are different WITHIN an era. Women’s rights in America is a whole different thing from women’s rights in Pakistan. So who is right, America or Pakistan, and who decides that?
If you answer “They are both right, because both have different morally acceptable structures in their individual societies,” then you must admit that you can’t condemn the actions of a man like Hitler, or the virtually worldwide acceptance of human slavery in the 18th century. To them their actions were morally right, so, based on your chosen worldview, you’re forced to agree with them (against all reason and conscience).
So why the nagging feeling inside that they were wrong and you know they were wrong? Where does that feeling come from? Birth? Society? Do you really think you wouldn’t think murder was wrong if it was accepted in society? I beg to differ.
To them their actions were morally right, so, based on your chosen worldview, you’re forced to agree with them (against all reason and conscience).
Err.. WTF? How does that follow? I do not, based on **my** morals, have to agree that **anyone else’s** are good. I can conclude that even crazy people might have had “some” reasonable ideas, while recognizing that those ideas would have arisen anyway, or did, parallel, some place else, etc. I, in no way, shape, or form, have to agree that, on a basis of what I understand about humanity, other people, my own society, etc., that some nutter from more than a half century ago was not dead wrong about nearly everything. And, you can’t even claim, without totally ignoring reality, that modern Christian faith is any different. There are a lot of things I don’t do, because they can lose me my job, hurt other people around, me, etc., which I never the less don’t think are inherently wrong, and some things I am forced to do, for the same reason, which I often find objectionable, but which the current “morality” of our society, at least among the majority, think are perfectly reasonable.
Your faith doesn’t have some magic thing behind it telling the priests that jump ship from one church to found some new wave, “guiding” people forward. Progress is being made as a result of two things – people feeling uncomfortable with how they themselves, or someone else they know, is being treated, and **choosing**, based on their empathy, to do something to make things better, and second, and this one bugs the hell out of the religious right, to the extent that their cries of anguish often drive people to even more of the same – doing things that some joker told them will bring down the wrath of some god or other, and… it not actually bloody happening, or something *good* happening instead. This argument has been made, to give just one of the most ridiculous of examples, by so called moral watchdogs, every single time bathing suits have gotten skimpier. The irony is, they are now at the point where we might as well go European, and stop worrying about nudity, and.. instead of it causing widespread chaos, its done… almost nothing at all (except, for the truly paranoid, maybe turned places into blue states, or something).
Every social movement, and improvement of the moral code we live under, and the laws that derive from them, has been both apposed, and supported, by religions, on some level. And… neither side has ever had better “Biblical” arguments than the other for why “they” are the ones that are right on the subject. So, the real arguments, the ones that result in change, have been notoriously secular ones. That it doesn’t matter what religion says on the subject, it is **obvious** to real people, who are really effected by the change, that people are being hurt by bad ideas, and not harmed at all by ones that have no clear good or bad to them, and are being helped by things that actually **help them**, without regard for whether they think Jesus thought one way, or the other, or agreed or disagreed with some ancient bit of some passage, or had some sort of opinion, of any kind, about matters.
The world changes, and religion **follows**, often being dragged kicking and screaming, at times, but it follows. It has never been the other way around, ever. Not even the NT did that. It took hundreds of years, and a near obliteration, of Christianity for it to rise to dominance, but, it did so because the world changed, and **it** changed to fit it, not because it staid the same, and the world somehow stumbled around, until it finally realized it made sense. If that was the way it worked, the Nicene Creed would have never been necessary. The church would have never had to turn God’s right hand into a demon, and grant him some kingdom of the damned, that doesn’t exist in the original Coptic texts. They wouldn’t have needed to steal Yule, Easter, and bits and pieces of other pagan religions and ceremonies, to convince people to attend mass on those days, instead of dancing naked in the woods, or decorating a tree (which, thousands of years later, the same sort of clowns that banned it as being pagan 200 years ago, now insist atheist have some sort of war against… Sigh…) What it can’t borrow, it steals, what it can’t steal, it claims it invented, what it can’t claim it invented… it condemns, until it becomes so popular that they have to claim it was all OK, and great, and godly, all along. Where is the “great, unchanging, moral law” in that circus?
Ok, but on the other side of that coin we could not point the finger at them and say “You were wrong,” because they honestly thought they were right.
Yes, we most certainly could, and do, judge the morals of other eras and societies as wrong. Acknowledging that the people within those societies are/were sincere in their beliefs that their morals are/were “good” and “just” does not prevent you from judging their morality through the lens of your own society’s moral norms.
One hundreds years from now an entirely different society might point at us and say we were dead wrong on many things. My question is, “Who decides what is right and wrong?”
Paul, you seem to think that morality or “right and wrong” are absolutes and unchanging concepts. That is not the case and it never has been the case.
It can’t be each era and society, because they all change. They not only change with the era, but they are different WITHIN an era. Women’s rights in America is a whole different thing from women’s rights in Pakistan. So who is right, America or Pakistan, and who decides that?
Ultimately “who is right”—especially in this age where technology makes us all a part of a global society—will be decided by both the people living within America and Pakistan, and those living outside of those two countries. As history has shown us, with knowledge comes greater respect for human dignity and our moral concepts expand as our knowledge expands. While we cannot change with brute force the moral concepts of other sovereign nations, change can be effected through other means.
Take, for example, the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM). As people gained more knowledge this practice began to be deemed as “immoral” by those outside of the societies that practiced it and slowly by certain segments within the societies themselves. For decades those who deem it immoral have used education and political pressure to change the mindsets of those who believe the practice to be moral. Today, it is outlawed in most countries that formerly deemed it “moral” although the practice has not yet been eradicated.
If you answer “They are both right, because both have different morally acceptable structures in their individual societies,”
Again, Paul, acknowledging that any given society’s morals in any era were/are deemed “good” and “just” by them is not the same thing as condoning or agreeing with their views of what is moral.
then you must admit that you can’t condemn the actions of a man like Hitler, or the virtually worldwide acceptance of human slavery in the 18th century. To them their actions were morally right, so, based on your chosen worldview, you’re forced to agree with them (against all reason and conscience).
Your erroneous assumptions regarding my “worldview”, Paul, are just that: erroneous assumptions.
So why the nagging feeling inside that they were wrong and you know they were wrong? Where does that feeling come from? Birth? Society?
Yes, Paul, what I deem as “moral” comes primarily from the society and era I was born into, just as yours does. Our concept of what is moral expands with our knowledge; evidence of that can be seen within our own lifetimes (well, my anyway, I’m not sure how old or young you may be).
Do you really think you wouldn’t think murder was wrong if it was accepted in society? I beg to differ.
Actually, Paul, I do think “murder” under certain prescribed circumstances is acceptable, as does most of our society. Certainly in defense of oneself or others, and, personally, I believe in the death penalty under certain conditions.
(Paul his no thoughtfulness or ability to figure out how, and if, Hitler was “more evil” than the entire body of the German People during WW2, or if Hitler was less “timely” than Churchill or FDR in his thinking; Paul’s “moral system” is simply obedience, and we know where that leads.)
>
Todd, since I can’t seem to “get it” with your comments (maybe you should be looking at your own lack of communication skills), answer this question (if you can bring yourself to answer a question):
In light of the entire body of nature running on “the survival of the fittest,” was what Hitler did wrong? It’s a fact that he was a fan of evolution and was trying to help it along.
Darwin does not talk about “survival of the fittest,” nor does nature work as you describe. Hitler, and many others, a lot of Christians included, mistook Darwin to say that, just as you do now. Funny how by not understanding this you seem like you are just repeating your indoctrination.
Anyone with more than a passing understanding of Darwin gets that. In attacking my writing skills, you behave as if to “blame others,” Paul. Criminals do that. Children do that. Christians do that. In fact, all people, cast blame at some point. Unless it is based on substance, who cares? I don’t.
Questions that assume God is real, or that moral laws are not mere human description sometimes taken from human observation don’t have legitimate answers. It’s like asking the color of a unicorn. Unicorns don’t exist, so I can’t tell you the color. You are imagining “God,” so any point based on what you imagine is not for me to answer. My communication is quite clear on that.
You are free to maintain whatever beliefs you like Paul, but when you seek that Christian myth, and the failed laws of failed ancient monotheistic theocracy controls others, today in America, expect your ungrounded belief to be exposed as erroneous, as is happening here. And since rational people don’t freely consent to rule by myth, expect that unless you modify your belief, you’ll be unhappy, because belief is not relevant in a modern world.
>
In light of the entire body of nature running on “the survival of the fittest,” was what Hitler did wrong? It’s a fact that he was a fan of evolution and was trying to help it along.
Fittest – to the uninformed, who don’t understand anything about the subject = “Those with the most power.”
Fittest – to those that actually bloody understand what it means = “Those who survive the best in the conditions they find themselves, regardless of how strong they are.”
Hitler, along with the works of Jews, also ordered Darwin’s book, and those of atheist authors, like Nietzsche, because they ran contrary to **his** ideas about who master races, and god. He was ***not*** a fan of evolution. He hated it. It claimed that there was no pinnacle of creation, no single “master race”, no grand design, and no justification, at all, for his madness.
What he did was wrong, as far as the world was concerned, because, oddly enough, a lot of people died in the damn process, and people, for some reason, don’t like that. It would have, inevitably, failed, the same way that every single government in the world has, which based its idea of who the “fittest” is, not on who does the best, but personal delusions about their own people “being” the best, while in the face of all evidence to the contrary. He whole entire argument hinged on Darwin being wrong, and that “god” had chosen “his people” to the best, and that someone else (i.e. Jews), temporarily, displaced them via deceit and trickery.
Though, how the failure of the master race, to a people able to trick them wasn’t somehow a sign of their lack of “fitness”, well.. like I said, he hated Darwin, because if Darwin was right, then the Jews *had* overtaken and replaced the ‘master race’. Darwin, therefor, could **not** be right, and therefor, his lies had to be destroyed. This silly fantasy, invented by certain people who liked neither Hitler, nor Darwin, that the one was the fan of the other, instead of despising his theory, because it undermined every single thing he wanted to be true, along with the careful redefinition of the same lunatic as “not a believer”, despite him ordering every single bloody trooper he had to where a buckle declaring themselves a servant of god, is getting ***REALLY*** tiresome at this point.
I repeat, he was not a fan of Darwin, he hated the man. He was not non-religious, he was a pseudo-Catholic, ex-choir boy, at one time considering the priesthood, nutcase, with an obsession with the occult. And, he lost, not because of some grand higher moral law, but because most people get pissed, but are not willing to do anything about, someone grabbing the country next door, but they do start getting seriously nervous, when they declare that they want the entire bloody continent, and plan to kill lots of people in the process. And, he very nearly won, because the US, at the time, held a huge number of racist, wackos, who sympathized with his position (just, thankfully, not enough of them to prevent us from, eventually, getting off our isolationist backsides and helping do something about him).
Actually, Paul, I do think “murder” under certain prescribed circumstances is acceptable, as does most of our society. Certainly in defense of oneself or others, and, personally, I believe in the death penalty under certain conditions.
And, see, here is where there can even be conflict between people over moral issues, even when they mostly agree. The death penalty can only be “moral”, if these conditions are met:
1. There is absolutely no possible way the person can have been innocent, and in the wrong place at the wrong time (or even the wrong color, as still happens).
2. You are so provably certain of this that its not necessary to waste decades, and vast amounts of money, basically defending the idea that the justice system got it right.
3. You have Vulcans, as the judge, etc., or something, on the jury, so can be absolutely sure that there was no bias in the decision.
4. There is absolutely no possible hope for the person to redeem their own moral code, and become useful to society.
As things stand, the death penalty is more expensive than life time incarceration, decisions, from the cops involved, all the way up to juries, are based as much on emotional appeal as clear fact, people end up on death row, even when the evidence is sketchy and uncertain, and its unacceptable, if you want to use such a punishment, to kill the wrong person, then find out later that someone else did it, and the supposed connections where all circumstantial, and/or worse, that the main piece of evidence was a confession, and a guilty plea, both given because some false promise that it would take the death penalty **off** the table for them, but they where going to be, based on, “all the evidence we have”, screwed anyway.
Those are the only conditions under which it is “acceptable”. Otherwise, the state isn’t punishing a criminal, but murdering an innocent, and the public is culpable for them doing it, because they wanted “justice”. Self defense, thus, becomes that only valid grounds such a thing might happen, and even then you get everything from idiots using the “law”, as written in some places, to justify chasing after someone, and shooting them, to retrieve a stolen item, while they flee, only to have the court (funny how judges that pull this BS are never called “activist”, unlike the ones that give people breaks), let the one that shot the other guy in the back go free, to cops putting a bullet in the head of a kid, who was already restrained, then calling “that” self defense. Never mind numerous other idiocies. Zimmerman, the idiot that shot a car crash victim because they where scared that a wounded black person was knocking on their door (for help, but, gosh.. how where they supposed to know that), cops shooting people trying to get into their own homes, or otherwise not doing anything either a) wrong, or b) threatening. Hell, even the case of belligerent cops harrassing a woman they pulled over, then firing on a car full of kids, when she panicked at them waving their guns around and fled in the car.
We already allow for some seriously stupid assumptions, in many cases, as to what “defense” means, never mind that, somewhere in all those laws, there is a rule that says, “If they are no longer a threat, you have to stop trying to kill them.”, but then, you tack on the, “The state has the right to decide someone should die, and even allow it to go through (as Texas has numerous times), even when new evidence suggests there might be a problem, to kill people they deem not worth keeping alive, or saving.” Yeah.. in a perfect world, the death penalty “might” make sense. In the one we have, at best, it costs more money that just throwing away the damn key, and at worst, it kills people, some of whole have, in a few cases, never committed a crime at all. And, because of that, there has been a huge increase in the number of people rejecting the very concept, in *any* circumstance.
Because, if you murder all your neighbors, you run out of fraking neighbors. Some people value the existence of other people, and plants, and animals, etc. Some people don’t, they are called psychopaths, and many of them are “incapable” of seeing value in anything else, unless it serves some immediate purpose to them.
So in any era of history, and within each individual society, that society’s morality was “good,” no matter how that was defined or what that consisted of?
As far as that society was concerned yes. We are however a social species, so, to some extent, we tend to form morals based on the ability to do that. People that can’t, or don’t learn to, especially from an early age, **never** learn the same morality as everyone else. Its like language skills. Beyond a certain age, it becomes permanently broken, and, it can be “intentionally” broken too. The Aztecs considered themselves perfectly moral, so did everyone from the Inquisition, to the Protestants, to the Thuggym, who where Kali worshipers, to slave owners, to us. And, every single bloody one of them thought all the rest where immoral, for not agreeing with them.
Oddly enough, despite some pretty lame attempts to claim they where the ones that did it, nearly every advancement towards a fairer, less divisive, less hateful, more accepting, and just, society has been either “in spite of” the prevailing religion of the time, or against it. There have, obviously, been serious setbacks. For every Dawkins, there has been a Stalin (with the irony there being that Stalin, pretty soon after killing the real atheist on the team, made a deal with the Orthodox Russia Church, to support him, so.. might not have been a believer, was a nut, but saw religion as “useful”) , and.. for every progressive Christian movement, there has been some sort of protestant movement, or a leader like Takamata. I would even argue that, given the greater tendency of the religious to kill people who are apostates, over the centuries, this is, in fact, more common to religion.
Despite this, humanity, as a whole, as “tried” to strive to be nicer to each other. Now.. the US is trying to turn itself into a 2nd world nation, with crazies that differ with respect to religion, and its imposition on people, from radical Islam only in that our nuts would prefer jail time, propaganda, poverty, ignorance, and lawsuits, to force people to conform, rather than thrown rocks, bombings, and genocide. But, its the same song being played, while, the places that are, socially, doing **vastly** better than the US, are all throwing out the idea that religion has any place in framing a moral, ethical, or just, society (instead of one where the justice is to those in power (usually because they believe, or at least heavily support those that do, morality is defined by the guy with the most money and/or weapons, and ethics are “optional” things, which shift even more like quicksand than many believers accuse atheists of doing to morality.)
So *kagehi*, I was with you to the very end. If religion fails to because it attempts to describe the world in an unyielding and absolute way, I would say morality, since it has to be played out in real time, fails in the face of symbols, like wealth or more ubiquitously, authority (Invisible alienated God??? Really???) Even if a person had “the way” it would ludicrous to think another could experience it by simply employing a set of verbal commands. That would be some kind of magic. If Paul’s trying to convince us his stuff is magic, I’ll agree.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Year Without God wrote:
> kagehi commented: “Because, if you murder all your neighbors, you run > out of fraking neighbors. Some people value the existence of other people, > and plants, and animals, etc. Some people don’t, they are called > psychopaths, and many of them are “incapable” of seeing value in” >
To the question of morals, and if we learn it from religion… My personal beliefs are that my morals come from empathy. Empathy drives our moral landscape (Or at least my own)
I have a very strong empathy drive. I’m not sure where it comes from.. maybe we are born with it…. or not, religion not withstanding….
Empathy drives our moral landscape (Or at least my own)
There is even a major irony in this, in that “empathy” can keep you from doing seriously stupid things to people, just because they do something to annoy you today, that they didn’t do yesterday, but even from a “basic” game theory approach, devoid of emotional context, there is no logic **at all** to not working with others in an equitable way. Giving something up, in the short term, instead of hoarding it, gains you **more** in the long term. Even bloody monkeys, a lot of birds, and some small animals, can figure this one out, and they hardly have someone looking over their shoulder, and telling them, “Its good to do that.” They do it because they are smart enough to figure out that, if both of them pull on a rope, and get half the food, they both get food, but if one of them pulls on the rope, only one of them gets it. Empathy means that you “work together” to pull on the bloody rope, because you both benefit, even if you will never, ever, directly, in any way, interact with the other person. Without that.. one of them might hoard it. But, if there was a possibility of future loss, like the other monkey remembering, and beating the frak out of you later, for cheating them… then even a monkey with ***no*** concept of empathy would “learn” not to cheat the other one (which isn’t to say that, in those conditions, they wouldn’t just cheat only when they where fairly sure the other monkey would never know who did it.)
You see all of these scenarios play out among humans. You even see some of this idiocy in politics. Case in point, two women, one is telling me, “I can’t work, do to a disease that won’t let me, and which most insurance **will not treat**, because its rare, and expensive to do so, so not ‘cost effective’ for them, so I live off Social Security. I pay $700 a month in rent, while getting $800 from Social Security, and then can’t get food stamps, because, according to state law, I make too much money to qualify.”, which means, she has $100 to buy food, clothes, and what ever else. Second woman, with a good job, multiple CDs, stock options, two working people in the family, has a habit of complaining that her latest stupid home project might take longer because of, “those damn taxes!”, and insists she won’t be able to retire like a normal person, presumably because doing so would mean she couldn’t re-tile her bathroom for the 4th time, and.. oh, yes, is a Tea Party Republican, is saying, “Its unfair that poor people can get really good deals on health care!” Because, you know.. its unfair for someone that can’t even buy food to be given a break, but totally fair if someone that **could** live on less money, but just doesn’t bloody want to, doesn’t.
Now, to me, this shows a real serious disconnect with respect to empathy. Because, see. you can expect a bloody monkey to not think about the other monkeys, when they can’t see them, and thus *assume* that there isn’t anyone else on the other side of the rope, so are somehow not cheating someone else. Humans, to my perpetual disappointment at being dead wrong in this matter, are ***supposed to be*** smarter than that. Yet, sadly, they are much more likely to send money, which goes to waste, to some clown “showing them” another monkey on TV, like some of these children’s charities, than say, “We demand that you increase food programs and education, for underprivileged kids, in our own country, which.. just don’t happen to be on TV all the time, where we can see them.”
Oh, right, I actually, in responding to the other absurdities in his assertions, totally missed that howler. The best description I ever saw on the reality of this is, “We don’t get our moral codes from gods, or holy texts, and neither do the people that believe they do. The get them from parents, grandparents, teachers, friends, neighbors, and even siblings, and experience.” What religion does is cram as many people as it can into a room, tell them they are all part of some imaginary family, drum into them, day after day, stories, and claims about what is right and wrong, in an attempt to “force” the churches moral code on everyone in there, Which then, fails, as every single person in the congregation develops their own ideas about everything, including which bits of the sermon they liked, and what they thought it meant, all on their own, based on every thing they did “outside” of that church.
The moral ones try to find a better church, which is less totalitarian, truly cares about real people, not fanciful ideals, and grows more liberal in the process. The immoral ones see, in every lesson, a way for themselves to be saved, or get ahead, or force their opinions on others, or gain reward for their actions, and find “worse” churches, which spread, in order of rank from the least offensive, to the worst of them, uncertainty (in the form of misinformation, and/or ignorance), prejudice, injustice, fear, jealousy of what other people achieve, or have, or gained (while, of course, sinning, after all, how else could they be doing so much better…), apathy towards those who are not “trying hard enough”
(often, at this point, people not as rich, or lucky, or educated, albeit perhaps mis-educated, as them), hate of those who are different, and finally, in the end, war and death (all, of course, as a means to purge the world of threats to their faith).
The end for the first group is either deism, agnosticism, or atheism. The end for other sort.. is invariably despotism, delusions of their own piety, and force used to “make* people conform, and punish those who don’t, even if near total conformity, at least on the surface, never rids them of all the things merely hidden beneath, and the punishments never put a stop to those things being done in secret.
In fact, all they ever achieve, is a sort of mask, over top of things that turn the stomach of the most unholy non-believer – honor killings, forced marriage of women to their rapists, mass murder, child molestation, and a huge list of other horrors. Many of them either committed by, sanctioned by, hidden by, or excused by, some priest or other, at one time or another (and some, still).
No offense, but I had to chuckle when I read that statement. Do you know how many different definitions of “atheism” I’ve heard in the last 19 years? About one for every atheist I’ve ever tried to discuss issues of life with.
Paul, why would you expect people to share the same opinions regarding “life issues” simply because they happen to share the label of “Atheist”? The only thing that can be said of all atheists is that we lack a belief in any form of deity…that’s it. How that lack of belief plays out in one’s life is solely dependent upon the individual.
Atheists like to present this united front filled with liberated overcomers who live in emotional and philosophical bliss. Um…nice try.
You must meet some “interesting” atheists, as the ones I know, myself included, do not claim to live in any type of utopian “bliss” but in the reality of everyday life.
For those on the fence and wonder about these things, atheists live in a great amount of uncertainty and fear, just like every other human being. They imagine they are “free” of a moral code,
Where on earth do you get this ridiculous notion that atheists live without a moral code?
but in actuality they are bound to the same moral laws giving by the same Moral Law Giver that the rest of the human race is bound to.
Actually, atheists know that morality is a human construct that exists independent of any god or gods.
They imagine such freedom actually makes them happy, but all one has to do is look at the noted atheists of the past and see if they lived in such happiness and bliss. Go ahead, research it.
Paul, you have a rather twisted idea of what atheism is and what makes an atheist happy. Here’s a scary newsflash for you: what makes me happy as an atheist is probably, by and large, the same things that make you happy as a believer (aside from religion).
Atheists have a free-will, as every human does, and they can resist and even violate that law. But not without consequences. Even if they imagine it otherwise. Reality is reality, no matter the level of denial.
No offense, Paul, but your belief in God is not the same thing as “reality”. It is your faith, you derive comfort from it I’m sure, and you believe it is the right way to live your life, but at the end of the day it is still just a belief, not a fact.
Do you know how many different definitions of “atheism” I’ve heard in the last 19 years? About one for every atheist I’ve ever tried to discuss issues of life with.
And, actually, in all honesty, this almost *exactly* like claiming that someone can’t be a Californian, because, well, they never visited San Francisco, or been in a gay pride parade. Its not just the presumption that one single commonality is impossible, without them somehow being the same about everything else, but.. he then, just to contradict himself, also **presumes**, that the core things they share is, “Freedom from a moral code”, i.e., the equivalent (at least to someone who presumes that they know there is something *wrong* with that common element), all of them involving themselves in something that *he* objects to (even if he has no where near as clear a definition as the hypothetical parade).
“atheists live in a great amount of uncertainty and fear”
I am always so glad for all those believers out there who come along to tell atheists what they really believe, how they really live, where they morality really come from (while, usually making vague claims about them someone failing at it), and, most importantly, pointing out how much “uncertainty and fear” we feel about things… Half the believers I know are scared to death they will be haunted by the same sort of ghosts in the latest bit of idiot fantasy movie about the paranormal, and the other half are scared to death that they will offend god somehow, either by doing something wrong, or by not doing something (which so often consists of not pointing out how much better they are for believing, how sinful everyone else is, etc.).
Yeah, they are scared of most of the same things that spook atheists, but they are also scared of about a million other things, which atheists rejects are just more bizarre religious stuff. And, as for uncertainty.. I would much rather be “uncertain” about what global warming will actually do to the planet, and a great many other things, than absolutely certain, like so many of them are that, “God won’t let us destroy the planet.”, and at the same time be, based on all the times we have obliterated forests, destroyed nations of people, polluted stretches of land to the point where even animals won’t go there, and so much more, that this is so dead bloody incorrect as to be practically, if there was a god, blasphemous.
Great amount… lol When I see someone making this claim that can present facts, not personal opinions, about what those “uncertainties and fears” actually are, avoid making ones up that leave all of us non-believers laughing our backsides off at the absurd lack of comprehension shown, or are not in the category sometimes described as, “Not even wrong” (this is meant to signify a case where if A and B are possible things that *can* happen in this universe, the person making the claim will, instead, pick Q, which only exists in some alternate reality, so far outside the realm of our universe as to be about as plausible as my computer screen transforming into a ham sandwich), then I will be happy to discuss the things that they came up with. otherwise, such a statement is about as useful as asserting that someone else believes the sky is Green, and patting themselves on the back, because they as certain the real color is Lime, or, even more absurd, Orange, when, in reality, the person they are talking about thinks it is, in fact, blue, and never thought otherwise.
“Hitler, along with the works of Jews, also ordered Darwin’s book, and those of atheist authors, like Nietzsche, because they ran contrary to **his** ideas about who master races, and god. He was ***not*** a fan of evolution.”
That should have included, “ordered to be burned”, not “ordered”, as in a “having a nice read”. Sigh..
“In light of the entire body of nature running on “the survival of the fittest,” was what Hitler did wrong? It’s a fact that he was a fan of evolution and was trying to help it along.”
Strawman/Red Herring level; Master.
So, given your choice of the phrase “survival of the fittest,” we can assume that you actually know what “fitness” means in an evolutionary context, right?
I’ll drop a small hint for you; Catholics have part of it right.
Got any evidence for that ? I think it more likely we share a certain number of ethical instincts that follow from evolving as sociable primates. My evidence is how loyal we are to the small groups around us and how crap we are at dealing with those who are different. Just as I would expect us to be. Of course we are not just primates we are rational and have added layers of reason on top of that.
Very good explanation, Michael.
If you live in America that is exactly where they came from. I can’t believe you would even say that. Our constitution was the first Secular Constitution in the world. The founders went out of their way to NOT mention the Christian god at all in our highest law. The constitution’s power comes from “We the People”, not from God.
There are lots of Christians out there who would defend my right to free speech. There are also a lot of Christians out there who think only Christians should be allowed to speak, and everyone else should either shut up or *be* shut up. If they had the chance, there are some Christians who would like to go back to the time of “Christian nations” who would execute you for heresy.
I’ll take my secular, human rights any day, thanks, and thank the imaginary flying space-whales that followers of your god do not yet have the power to take my rights away.
Everything you said is so completely wrong and unprovable that I don’t know where to start! Wow. Suffice it to say that you can’t prove a single claim you made (other than “There are lots of Christians out there who would defend my right to free speech,” which is true.).
Help yourself if you think you can.
Again Paul forgets his opinion is not evidence. Nor is the opinion of any individual. The rest of us simply need to read the Constitution, which was voted on, and look at the other sources created at our founding.
Paul is simply a liar at this point.
>
//Again Paul forgets his opinion is not evidence. Nor is the opinion of any individual. The rest of us simply need to read the Constitution, which was voted on, and look at the other sources created at our founding.//
You’re right, Todd! And I was responding to a person who gave us his opinion on several things, didn’t he? Things which he can’t prove at all.
//Paul is simply a liar at this point.//
No, you’re a fool and you twist history to benefit your worldview.
Challenge for you: find a single representation of atheistic belief in by any influential Founder, document, building art, etc., in American history. What? Were they too stupid to know better? Let me guess, if they had read Darwin they would all be atheists, right? Darwin to the rescue! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Boy, if only they could think back then! Too bad.
Oh, wait…!
We are all still waiting for evidence from you Paul. Talk is cheap.
The evidence is all around for those willing to see it.
When I look around I see homeless people, people destroyed by drug addiction, people dying in car accidents, plane accidents, children raped and murdered, teenagers shot and killed at too young an age, Fire that destroys entire communities, broken families, people without jobs… the list goes on…
…you mean that evidence?
//When I look around I see homeless people, people destroyed by drug addiction, people dying in car accidents, plane accidents, children raped and murdered, teenagers shot and killed at too young an age, Fire that destroys entire communities, broken families, people without jobs… the list goes on…
…you mean that evidence?//
Yes, I do. Sin brings death. Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”
Romans 8:22 “or we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”
The entire creation was upset when Adam rebelled against God. Sin brings death. Combine that with man’s free will and evil heart, and bad things happen.
The “problem of evil” has been debated for centuries. Atheists like to throw this stuff in Christian’s faces and say, “See! If your God was real none of this would happen.” (Even though it happened in the very Bible itself.)
So I ask you. What is your solution to these problems? Education? Incarceration? Passing our condoms in schools? More government rules and regulations? What?
It’s becoming apparent that Paul’s beliefs are the root of much evil.
>
//It’s becoming apparent that Paul’s beliefs are the root of much evil.//
Well, after Todd gets done twisting as he is want to do, I guess you could come to that conclusion. Shoot! You can get any conclusion after Todd is done with it. LOL. (smh)
Maybe so Paul… Maybe a person could reach any belief. But unlike yours, mine are based in evidence. You pick evidence to support your beliefs and ignore the rest following no critical thinking.
>
“Sin”, or in other words, bad people, is evidence of man, not god.
I dunno Ray… It seems religion manufactures “bad people.” Look at Paul. He is as immoral and dishonest as they come.
>
I don’t know if I would go that far. I am sure Paul is a decent person capable of the same shortcomings we all possess. I’d probably have a beer with him if our paths ever crossed.
I just can’t figure out the logic of his beliefs… In the face of overwhelming lack of evidence.
I asked Paul “Disregarding the bible and everything in it, is there any evidence?” and he immediately quoted scripture.
I grew up with people like Paul. They are far worse than they present: unrepentant child abusers.
I saw him do that …
>
//I don’t know if I would go that far. I am sure Paul is a decent person capable of the same shortcomings we all possess. I’d probably have a beer with him if our paths ever crossed.//
Thank you, Ray. And while I don’t drink alcohol, I would enjoy a soda with you anytime.
I feel sorry for Todd. Really. He really imagines me to be immoral and dishonest. I’m neither (at least, by God’s grace, I try to be as moro and honest as I can be). Todd has a true hatred for Christianity and God. He hates Christians, and I think it stems back to something that happened in his childhood, and that is sad. Not sad at what he thinks about Christians, but more so what happened to him by “Christians” (as he believed them to be).
//I just can’t figure out the logic of his beliefs… In the face of overwhelming lack of evidence.//
Maybe you’re looking at the evidence wrong? We all have the same evidence.
//I asked Paul “Disregarding the bible and everything in it, is there any evidence?” and he immediately quoted scripture./
LOL! You’re too predictable, my friend. As soon as I posted that I said, “Ray is going to think I can’t read or do what he asked because I quoted Scripture.” Bingo!
I didn’t use the Bible to prove God exists. The Bible in its entirety is not an apologetic on the existence of God. It just states that he exists. The apologetic is nature. I quoted Pslam 19 because it’s exactly what I believe (and obviously David believed it, too). Pslam 19 isn’t “proof” that God exists. It’s a poetic way to say what I believe.
Scripture isn’t necessary to prove there is a Creator. Nature does that pretty well. Theologians call it “natural revelation.” But if you want to narrow it down as to which God and the fall of man, a Savior, Jesus Christ, etc., then you have to have the Bible. Theologians call that “special revelation.”
Like I say Paul. I grew up with your kind. I know the whole ruse. Be clear, it is “believers” like you that make the world unbearable.
Well, thanks for, if anything, a spirited and lively debate. Our beliefs are our own. I’m not being apologetic my own beliefs but I think further debate would only be re-hashing what has already been said. (I know.. this is like the 4th time I’ve said goodbye 🙂 )
…sometimes a comment can’t go unanswered!
I have learned a lot… even if my own convictions remain intact, as I firmly suspect yours will as well.
I only hope you one day decide to question your beliefs, as I have my own, which is why I’m an atheist today.
Question Everything.
//I only hope you one day decide to question your beliefs, as I have my own, which is why I’m an atheist today.
Question Everything.//
I agree. But can you seriously conceive of a person questioning their beliefs and remaining, or even becoming, a Christian? Off the top of my head, I can think of one prominent atheist (well, another one just jumped into my head) who forsake their atheism for a belief in God. One became a Christian (Lee Strobel) and the other perhaps a deist (Anthony Flew). Both were convinced that the evidence sided with a Creator.
I hope you don’t take the route that any questioning of one’s personal beliefs will always bring them to atheism. You can hold that up as your experience, but others have to come to their own beliefs on their own. The arguments about Strobel (“He wasn’t a REAL atheist”) and Flew (“He embraced a creator after his mind went”) are silly and demonstrate an incredible amount of arrogance in the atheist community. There are thousands and thousands of brilliant minds today who embrace God as a vital reality based on the evidence.
The “Problem of Evil” is not a question of how do we get rid of evil, but rather, why a supposedly all good deity would have created evil in the first place. In reading books by former clergy I have seen this question put forth as the most common “deal breaker” that opened their eyes to the mythological nature of religion. You can write the words “all good” in scripture, but you can’t make those connect to reality. It does not show the non-existence of all deities, but does sink the usual attributes of Christianity.
What evil?
“When you say there’s too much evil in this world you assume there’s good. When you assume there’s good, you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that’s Who you’re trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there’s no moral Law Giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil.” -Ravi Zacharias
// But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver //
Not necessarily Paul…We don’t need a creator to have morals…
Religion would assert that morals are a god given set of rules or commandments we follow, and without them man would be morally corrupt. However a quick logical look at human history would convince one otherwise. Man (Homo) has existed for an estimated 2 million years, with the modern concept of Homo Sapiens arriving roughly 200,000 years ago.
All men are born atheists, and not until they learn or invent the concept of gods do they become a person of faith. Long before the gods were invented humans had morals.
As simple hunter gatherers our morals allowed us to be a productive people sharing the benefits of the entire groups progress. Having morals is partially what allowed us to develop even further progressing us to live in communities.
Had there been no morals without god(s), then surely man would have been far to selfish to coexist in a hunter gatherer group, in a small community, town or village. Man has existed with out gods for over a hundred thousand years, only in the last few Milena has man invention of god(s) become part of the equation.
//Not necessarily Paul…We don’t need a creator to have morals…//
I disagree to the extent that humans can’t have a moral standard without a Moral Law Giver (God).
//Religion would assert that morals are a god given set of rules or commandments we follow, and without them man would be morally corrupt. However a quick logical look at human history would convince one otherwise. Man (Homo) has existed for an estimated 2 million years, with the modern concept of Homo Sapiens arriving roughly 200,000 years ago.//
This is only true if a lot of assumptions are true: namely, evolution. Otherwise, your argument breaks down.
//All men are born atheists, and not until they learn or invent the concept of gods do they become a person of faith. Long before the gods were invented humans had morals.//
That’s incorrect, Ray. Humans are born without any belief system. They aren’t Christians, Muslims, atheists, or anything else. All beliefs require and mental acceptance.
“Atheism” (Wiki): “Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.”
Babies can’t reject or hold a mental position. All ideas (including atheism) are learned.
//As simple hunter gatherers our morals allowed us to be a productive people sharing the benefits of the entire groups progress. Having morals is partially what allowed us to develop even further progressing us to live in communities.//
So which community’s morals are “right” or “wrong”? Is murder in one community “good” because they accept it as such, and “bad” in a community that doesn’t believe it’s right? If so, then you can’t complain about evil in the world. There is no such thing. It’s all based on each person’s definition of evil, which makes them all meaningless.
Let me give you a modern example. I just saw a headline in today’s news about how Russian president Putin equated homosexuals with pedophiles and said Russia needs to “cleanse” itself of homosexuality. So in Russia the official position, and no doubt the position of the majority of people, is that homosexuality is evil. Why is that even news? Isn’t it morally good in Russia for homosexuality to be evil if they, as a community, decide it is? Doesn’t each community set their own moral standards?
As you know, in America homosexuality is more accepted than not now. So who is right on this issue, Russia or the U.S.?
//Had there been no morals without god(s), then surely man would have been far to selfish to coexist in a hunter gatherer group, in a small community, town or village. Man has existed with out gods for over a hundred thousand years, only in the last few Milena has man invention of god(s) become part of the equation.//
That last statement is pure assumption. You have no basis for claiming that man would have been too selfish to exist. You have no way to scientifically establish such a claim.
As for man being without God or gods, you’re wrong there, too. That can be scientifically proven. As far back as written history goes we find the worship of God or gods. So what we OBSERVE shows just the opposite of what you claim.
In the most remote places on earth where tribal societies are cut off from modern societies, are the vast majority of them religious or atheist? If you’re right most of them should be atheist because (according to you) they were born that way and they never had exposure to a religious belief system. But the fact is that nearly all of them throughout history have been religious. That is very revealing. It tells us what is natural in ever human. It’s natural to seek something higher than ourselves (a trait that shouldn’t have any evolutionary benefit) and worship something we perceive greater than ourselves. The belief in no gods or higher being is NOT natural. It’s unnatural. Atheism is alien to the natural man.
Then why don’t you post it Paul?
>
You got it!
http://www.google.com
Paul, is that what you are using to cherry pick the sources to confirm you biased beliefs?
>
//Paul, is that what you are using to cherry pick the sources to confirm you biased beliefs?//
Naw, that’s what I’m using to jog your mind into considering what you should have already considered: go research it for yourself. It’s been out there a very long time.
Time to move on from Todd, folks! I know it breaks his heart, but he’ll have to puff up his chest and find a different target to shoot at. This one just didn’t quite go down like he had desired. Happy hunting, Todd.
I’ll be fine Paul. You still have yet to provide a shred of meaningful rigorous evidence to support you claim. So I really have nothing to give you. Come back when you grow up.
>
//I’ll be fine Paul. You still have yet to provide a shred of meaningful rigorous evidence to support you claim. So I really have nothing to give you. Come back when you grow up.//
Oh, I’m not leaving, silly boy. I’ll still be here. I’m just done with you. I’m moving on to those who are able to hold discussions with people they don’t agree with in a civil way. You seem to have a problem saying anything without name-calling, condemnation, or flat out rudeness. That’s a sign of immaturity on your part, so don’t stroke your ego too much. 😉
I’ve not been rude to you a bit Paul. I’m just tying your condition to the facts. You cannot reason like an adult. That is really beyond debate now. You’ve proven it.
>
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”
-Carl Sagan
It’s up to the one making the claim to provide evidence. And then Paul says “Do it yourself”.
Paul.. seriously.. that’s a cop-out. ..and you have no proof.. No evidence out side of the writings in the bible. None.
The U.S. is commonly recognized as having the first secular Constitution, so he seems to have you on that claim. Unless, you know of an earlier secular constitution. Do you?
Got evidence?
//The U.S. is commonly recognized as having the first secular Constitution, so he seems to have you on that claim. Unless, you know of an earlier secular constitution. Do you?//
Commonly recognized by who? Those who actually had a part in its formation, or secular revisionists?
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -President John Adams
Did you catch the word “only”? But, hey, what did HE know, right?
So, you don’t know of an earlier secular constitution, do you?
Articles of Confederation…
>
Would that be the same “Articles of Confederation” that the authors believed GOD led them to write?
“And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.”
Boy, that sounds awful Biblical!
“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” -2 Peter 1:21
Sound like Freemasonry, nothing like a Christain “God.”
>
//So, you don’t know of an earlier secular constitution, do you?//
For the United States of America? No, you?
“Our Constitution was made ONLY for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -President John Adams
You do realize how desperate you look, no? It does not matter the cherry picked opinion of a single person. We vote in this nation.
Adams also was an atheist.
>
//Adams also was an atheist.//
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SURE he was!
There is not one shred of evidence to support that claim. But believe what you want. I’m outta here with you. May God open your eyes to your foolishness.
For any country. You (Paul) had challenged the statement that the U.S. had the first secular Constitution. So, I asked you for an example of a country that had gotten there earlier. It does not matter if it was written by a bunch of monks and sprinkled with Holy Water. What matters is if it specifically establishes for the rule of law independent of religious belief, which the U.S. constitution did, in direct opposition of the Founders experience under King George and his claim of the “Divine Right of Kings.”
Again, there is no point in arguing over the religious beliefs of the individual Founders. They recognized that to go forward they needed to grant religious rights to the people and the only way to do that and avoid the religious conflicts they knew so well from history, was to keep religion out of government. Which they did.
//Again, there is no point in arguing over the religious beliefs of the individual Founders. They recognized that to go forward they needed to grant religious rights to the people and the only way to do that and avoid the religious conflicts they knew so well from history, was to keep religion out of government. Which they did.//
First, show me where I’ve argued over the religious beliefs of the individual Founders (other than pointing out that some were Christians) as proof that America was a Christian nation. Go back and find it.
Second, is John Adams’ statement below the expression of his own personal religious beliefs, or a direct reference to the Constitution you call secular?
“Our Constitution was made ONLY for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -President John Adams
In other words, is that statement more of “This is what I believe about God” or “We Founders authored an important document and here is the premise upon which it was made and who it was written for”?
Tell me which one is more accurate. Are you able to be honest with yourself and history?
By the way, the Founders did not see a danger of “religion” (Christianity) being affiliated with government, they saw the danger of a particular SECT of Christianity (Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, etc.) being the national religion, and THAT and only that is what they attempted to avoid. That is the entire premise behind the “Separation Clause.”
Otherwise, how could Adams say, “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity”?
Didn’t he know what you said?
Paul, I don’t know the context for that statement, but on its face, I have no problem with it. Adams and Madison and Jefferson and the rest knew that they were taking a big risky experiment by establishing a government with powers originating from the “consent of the governed.” They knew that it could only work if most of the people obeyed most of the laws, most of the time. It is, clearly, inadequate to govern anarchists who would only be controllable by fascists. We have a social deal going to try to be reasonably good to each other so it can work for all of us.
I think you are stretching the semantics over the word “only” above. I don’t know if Adams considered religion a requirement for morality, or not, and if so, which religions would qualify and which would not. His opinion on that does not really make any difference. He and the others wrote a secular government that provided protection for people to be religious (played no favorites), but did not require them to be so. Protecting the religious rights of the people through a government that stayed out of religion, was the greatest gift to religion the world has ever known.
I just want to know why we believe the old Founding Daddies to begin with.
Paul is correct. Those Old Libertine fuckers are pre-Darwin. As humans evolve, do does society. Can anyone imagine Benjamin Franklin and James Dobson holding hands while laying prostrate to the Golden Bull and worshiping the “Creator,” of Jefferson and Spinoza? Also, our favorite heal wearing, powdered wig prostitute fluffing “Gentleman Founders?” And so also they were before Marx. It is well-accepted fact that social production evolves with humans as well. Christianity’s relationship to that with our present and past since it was cooped by the Roman state is profoundly complex, and mostly exploitive. Look at what the Evangelicals and Mormons have done with it. Bootes has nothing on those guys.
That Paul asks us to include his beliefs on a par with an inquiry-based epistemology, such as described in the Enlightenment only means we have to admit all comers to the game.
To that end, I suggest that the Freemasons are superior to the Christians in all ways. Washington (wigs, heels, wooden teeth) was one. Masons believe in the same “God” as Paul. Talking the architects that founded our nation. So Why can’t Paul simply be one of those?
I’m sure quite a few, not all, of the “Founding Fathers” would have been quite comfortable with a discussion of how their beliefs were informed by a love of alchemy, and would look at our present discussion as set in the most dystopic science fiction imaginable.
Paul beliefs are irrelevant.
Adams would have recognized your authority issues Paul. Was Adams King of the US, because he certainly has no individual say beyond the rest of us?
>
//Adams would have recognized your authority issues Paul. Was Adams King of the US, because he certainly has no individual say beyond the rest of us?//
LOL!!!!! Who here said something about “The Pauls of the world are never wrong”? Perhaps he should have said “The Todds of the world.”
I know, I know, Adams didn’t know what he was talking about, right? (Sigh.)
We have a clear statement from someone in history who was part of the Founding process, and his comments mean nothing? Throw in the fact that we have no statement opposing his comments and it’s even more revealing. But, alas!, according to “Todd” “IT JUST CAN’T BE TRUE,” because he said so.
And you’re asking for “evidence”? What kind of evidence would satisfy you? The answer is none. You cannot be reasoned with, because you’re convinced IN SPITE of the evidence.
“Atheists like to present this united front” – nope, sorry. Another one of the things I love about being an atheist is I don’t have to belong to any kind of unified front, sign up for a newsletter, or show up for service to know where I stand with the world. We don’t have to agree… in fact, as accepting SCIENCE is a pretty major part of being an atheist, it’s a pretty logical point to arrive that the fact that we simply won’t always agree, because Science doesn’t always agree.
You can argue all day long that the New Atheists like Dawkins present this kind of “unified front” and I’ll argue all day long that he and people who think like him are jerks who don’t represent me any more than then Spanish Inquisition represents Christianity.
The very idea that people who re-soundly proclaim their non-belonging automatically belong to a specific archetype, is so illogical and so non-nonsensical that we should just go ahead and ignore it like we do so much of the religious-based arguments and opinions that we spend our lives ignoring.
And I’m not even going to being to go down those narrow roads of philosophical argument with you people because it’s such a ridiculous waste of time… the Sophists proved the folly of arguing silly rhetoric well over 2000 years ago and it really shouldn’t be the basis of any kind of legitimate conversation all these centuries later.
People like this “Paul” are the reason why I should never read debates on the internet. I only get depressed that a person could be so hard-headed.
Paul reminds me of the people who used to mock me in middle school. People who are smug, who laugh at you and insist they’re right even if they’ve just said something completely nonsensical. Notice how after every reply Paul declares victory, for example:
That’s what bullies do, to pretend they have won, to invent an imaginary consensus against their enemy, to try to shame the enemy into silence or goad the enemy into making some kind of foolish emotional attack that can be easily dispelled.
When you actually get something right, you don’t have to create longer and longer taunts proclaiming your rightness. You just say the truth, and people recognize it.
Also–I find it interesting that you quote the Articles of Confederation here, but you don’t see the contrast between it and our Constitution. “And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.”
You see? That’s what a typical religious-based law says. You know what law does NOT contain any language like that? The U.S. Constitution. If the founders wanted to emphasize the “biblical foundation” of the Constitution, they would have said something like *that* in the Constitution. It was normal to say things like that at the time. The fact that they did not say it speaks volumes about the true foundations of their government.
That’s what a secular constitution means. It doesn’t mean that I think all the founders were atheists, or that none of them read their bibles. It means that the Constitution stands on its own as law, without the need for any deity.
Funny thing about Shame and embarrassment. As an educator and an observer of how students, parents, and adults, generally respond to challenges to their behavior. There is a noticeable decrease in both responses when caught performing anti-social, illegal and immoral acts. Everything from cheating on tests to pedophilia finds perpetrators who exhibit no conscious guilt. We thus are astounded by their failure to be ashamed and embarrassed. Dennis Hastert, just came out suing his victim of pedophilia, for the money he paid his victim to remain quiet. Hastert admitted to doing wrong to others, and is serving a prison term as well as being permanently labeled a sex offender. Where we may ask, is his shame and embarrassment? Amazing, he has none! Which goes a long way to explaining, how he could have allowed himself to choose to abuse children. He is also a hypocrite. As Speaker of the House, he postured himself and promoted laws to punish lawbreakers and sexual predators.
We know that religious fanatics and practitioners are not immune to performing illegal, immoral acts. Sadly, too many make excuses and refuse to be contrite. Conclusion? Religious teaching and indoctrination do not prevent such criminal choices. Likewise, those who do not subscribe to any traditional God-oriented philosophy, and practice, are not immune to self-destructive choices. I think it is human nature to chose to be aligned with healthy social choices and/or misaligned. It doesn’t matter what your belief system is, which sustains you through living experiences. We are all naturally vulnerable to temptations and must choose between the morally good or not. This is the definition of the ‘Original Sin’, which condemned mankind to suffer for their choices and experience the gnawing, haunting guilt associated with bad choices. These choices are either healthy or harmful to oneself, and others in society, as well as the rest of the planet’s environment and creatures. G.
Rousseau and Mehta are each right, on different aspects of this, though they contradict each other on one point. Rousseau says you are an atheist, or nearly so, already, while Mehta correctly points out that your mere failure to pray or read the Bible daily hardly differentiates you from most “practicing” Christians to begin with.
Rousseau is correct to point out that atheism is an ontological position. Looked at this way, to live “as if atheism were true” is like deciding to “live as though string theory really does harmonize quantum mechanics with general relativity.” People who do or do not believe this still pay taxes, register to vote, and get driver’s licenses. The main difference is that if there were a “religion of string theory,” it would probably involve a sect that insisted that, by analogy, stringed instrument performance was the only valid form of musical expression and that all other forms of music making were deviant.
Rousseau is correct that you are merely “shrugging off an unnecessary accessory,” while Mehta is correct that a serious exploration of a point of view opposite to the one you were raised to hold is merely what any reasonable adult should be willing to do anyway (by the same token, no one, atheist or not, has the right to consider himself or herself educated without some knowledge of the teachings of the great world religions). The implication apparently embodied in your blog, that you are embarking on something radical or revolutionary really says a great deal more, in my view, about the naiveté and intellectual immaturity of many of the religious than it does about the matter at hand.
When I first learned of your blog, yesterday, I thought, “There is something flawed about this, though it’s hard to put one’s finger on. If he sincerely believes, his experiment would be like one’s loving child pretending to herself for a day, or a week, that her dad didn’t exist, avoiding the rooms where he was present, and taking no account of him; no doubt, at the end, she would feel very strange and more than a little sad, because of the loss of the personal connection. The experiment would be enlightening, though in an unsettling way.”
Once I read more of your posts this morning, I realized, as these two bloggers do, that your connection with Christianity was already frayed, if not severed. As Rousseau points out, “Former pastor leaves church” is hardly a remarkable story. To be sure, whatever contact you have with Christian friends will be marked by their wondering, privately or even aloud, if you have embarked on a course of criminal, or at least immoral, activity, which they seem to believe is true of atheists. Otherwise, what you seem to think is a remarkable step on your part is little more than what other maturing individuals have done before you. Some, like me, have left belief altogether, while still acknowledging that the Bible contains individual passages of nobility and power; others, for reasons that seemed sound to them, have found a form of belief that they could reaffirm.
It’s remarkable because he’s documenting it in real-time. Most former pastors seem to be afraid of their doubts, and hide them, and continue on for a long time preaching a faith they no longer believe in.
>It’s remarkable because he’s documenting it in real-time.
Umm, not exactly. His misgivings began a while ago; it’s just that he’s only decided to publicize them. And as “Rousseau” pointed out, there’s nothing particularly remarkable about the story “Former pastor leaves church.” Bell seems to find it remarkable because it’s happening to him, and whatever doubts he may have about the divinity of Christ, he seems to have no doubt as to how unique Ryan Bell is.
>Most former pastors seem to be afraid of their doubts, and hide them, and continue on for a long time preaching a faith they no longer believe in.
Bell, on the other hand, proposes to dabble in skepticism (or, as he puts it, “try it on”) and hopes to be celebrated for it. I can’t see that that’s much of an improvement.
Skepticism’s pretty much a necessity if you want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. If you don’t apply skepticism to your beliefs, you could be taken in by anything (not just religions; pseudoscience and the paranormal are also popular for non-skeptical people).
//Bell, on the other hand, proposes to dabble in skepticism (or, as he puts it, “try it on”) and hopes to be celebrated for it. I can’t see that that’s much of an improvement.//
I continue to be more optimistic. In the posts written since you made this comment, Bell continues to sound more like an honest seeker to me, and less like an attention whore. I say anyone who genuinely explores their beliefs is doing something good, and someone who blogs about their journey as a way of edifying others is also doing something good.
I could be wrong about Bell’s sincerity. Only time will tell.
Hey there!
I don’t think you’re “doing it wrong”. I think you’re doing what anyone of any religion or spirituality should do; you’re seeing things from the other side. I’m proud of you, but people have a way of picking words apart and assume just because you accidentally created a misnomer that you are literally TRYING to ignore your previous faith. You aren’t “trying atheism”, you’re “looking at everything in a new light”.
Zach, I like your comment. I am sure that Ryan would do this much differently if he could go back a month with the power of hindsight. If so, I suspect he might take a position such as, “I am going to walk among the atheists for a year in order to understand them better find ways to better bring our teachings to them on their own terms.” Church people have always understood a “mission to the heathens” and will often speak of Saul of Tarsus (Paul) working among us to do so.
Oh well, too late for that now.
Mr. Bell – I don’t think there’s any right way or wrong way to seek your truth. After having grown up in a home with a Catholic mother and a Pentecostal father, I learned early that the negativism and disapproval/unacceptance that came with organized religion was not for me. Only recently have I become comfortable identifying myself as atheist, as I have arrived at the conclusion that I’m more comfortable explaining the world around me in terms of science, theories, and research. You have made a tremendous leap, and I think it’s only reasonable that you spend some time “somewhere in the middle” as I did as an agnostic, before you really determine what your truth is. My family is deeply religious, as are many of my friends. I accept them because if their faith is what makes them a good person and they find comfort and strength in that, so be it. That is not the path I’ve chosen. I find comfort and strength in the search for truth itself, and that only I can solve the problems that arise in my life. Just me. Quite empowering, actually. I wish you the best of luck in your search, and know that you have a large community of which to ask questions, with no judgment involved. I applaud your bravery.
P Dempsey and Jennifer hit the nail on the head. I couldn’t agree more.
Both of these articles don’t seem to understand what it is like to “come out” as a nonbeliever from Christianity. Yes, you can quietly go to atheist meet-ups and read books – but making it public that you have chosen to not involve God in your life brings a lot of conversations and social disagreement that many atheists have to deal with. You have chosen to expose yourself to that to get the full experience. Keep going 🙂
As an atheist, I have to say that I’m quite moved by your journey. When I heard about this blog, it seemed like a stunt to “prove” God’s existence by pretending to suspend belief only to confirm your own biases. Now that I’ve read some of it, I feel a bit ashamed of myself for thinking so. It’s clearly a thoughtful and, if you’ll excuse the expression, spiritual way of trying to expand your horizons and consider alternative viewpoints.
I suspect that you’ll end the year reaffirming your belief in God, but I also think you’re likely to learn some things along the way. The best of luck to you–I’ll return occasionally to read about how it’s going.
I suspect that initial assumption (This is only a stunt) is exactly why Mehta initially said he was doing it wrong.
I commend your open mindedness and desire to experience something new. that’s all that matters. who cares how you do it? I am agnostic and I will be reading your blog!
You are not living without gods if you simultaneously believe gods exist. It flavors your every thought.
You are still living in what Carl Sagan called “the demon-haunted world.” Reality is quite a different experience when you view everything in natural terms and see supernatural claims as myth and superstition.
A better website title would be “Year Without Talking to God” or “Year Learning About Atheism.”
“Wrong?” When it comes to philosophical exploration, unless your methodology includes doing harm to others, there is no ‘wrong’. I commend you on your journey this year and am avidly following your posts.
I’ve been a questioning atheist, a lackadaisical atheist and a devout atheist in my four plus decades of life. (Baptists told me I was going to hell when I was 4 years old, so my deck has always been stacked against godliness.) It is not a tenet of my personal faith in humanity that everyone else, or even anyone else, agree with me. I’m good without god. And, if you feel better and are a better person with God or Allah or whomever; good for you. (Belligerent atheists annoy me as much as proselytizing evangelicals/jihadists…)
You are a believer, and I don’t happen to believe that that can really change for a person. But, I also believe that belief and reason can coexist in a person. I suspect your journey will not be so much about living without God as learning there are different and valuable approaches to living his ideal. Any person of any faith is capable of living a good life as a good person; as is any person of no faith. So, honestly, I wish you the best of luck on your endeavor this year. I enjoy reading your posts and look forward to your conclusions next January.
“You are a believer, and I don’t happen to believe that that can really change for a person.” Huh? Woah, don’t you know that’s how most atheists come to exist, being raised religions and later losing their faith? I’m one of the odd ones that has been a skeptic for as long as I can remember, but that’s much more rare (esp. in America). You should check out “The Atheist Experience” — one of its primary hosts, Matt Dillahunty, was a Baptist for something like 25 years, even going to study to become a minister, until his research led him to question his beliefs (and ultimately part ways with them). We’re always capable of changing our minds; it’s just a question of whether we care enough to learn the truth, and how much effort we put in.
*being raised religious
The lack of editing is really starting to hit me; I’m too quick on the draw hitting Post without proof-reading…
I agree with many of the postings here that there is nothing wrong with what you’re doing, in fact it is admirable that you’re doing it in such a public way. I think it will encourage many people to seriously consider their beliefs, which is a step toward developing a healthy, evolved society (and perhaps this is your ultimate aim). I am sure that your experience will involve many questions to which I hope you’ll find answers as you progress through your journey.
A critical question, however, is, how will you be able to deny God’s role in your daily life when it isn’t what you truly believe? I would argue that denouncing God’s involvement in everything from a beautiful sunset to your lost car keys (from your NPR interview – 1/9) is impossible, if you truly believe that he/He is present and involved in every part of your life. For atheists and agnostics, this realization occurs over time as a lengthy process, or, for some, as a drastic shift in response to an event or epiphany. Regardless, isn’t it a realization, not a choice? As advocates for gay rights, we may even equate it with the oft-held religious belief that homosexuality is a choice. I fear that treating atheism as something you can “try on” is equal to treating “truths” as choices.
Best wishes with this experiment.
Atheism isn’t a description of how you behave, but how you think. The only way to really get there is by the same route atheists have taken… seriously questioning your own reasoning (i.e. why you believe what you believe, and if those beliefs are justified). The best way to go about it, if you’re serious, is to talk to an atheist. They’ll ask you why you believe in God; you’ll tell them; they’ll explain exactly why that reason is not justified, and then the ball is in your court to either see the fallacy/error in play or not. Whereas a religious person treats the religion they were brought up in as special and other religions as somehow made-up or delusional, an atheist starts with the basis that no one religion gets special treatment; if one is true, it should be substantiated above and beyond anything that is mere human invention.
(Actually nix atheism being a description of “how you think”; I was conflating atheism and skepticism there. It’s more that atheism is most often the _result_ of skeptical thinking… though some atheists don’t fit that particular mold.)
i pick up your story on cnn, and i wasn’t so surprised until i noticed that you were Seventh-day Adventist, man you realy are messed up, you had the truth in your hand and you decided to do a publicity stunt to the devil? but thats alright, i get you, your mind is not working straight. Only think that worries me is your 2 daughter, please tell me that you will not speak to them during your ridiculous adventure, please let them be with their mother, because you are not the role model that they need. But in this moment i would like for you be my brother though, because i could beat you up to put some senses into your head!
I think this must win for the most “immature” response yet.
Ryan, I hope you do not take these comments regarding your children too much to heart. You are their father and you and your wife are the ONLY ones who know how your journey should be presented to your children.
People who do, in fact, have the truth, do not go about exchanging it for lies. If you have found real food, you would never begin eating sawdust. If the devil tried to convince you sawdust was better, you wouldn’t believe him, because your experience speaks too strongly against it.
If aventism was really the truth, Bell wouldn’t reject it. Instead, he’s rejecting it because he has found, through personal experience, that this belief system does not line up with the truth.
I think this contrast in your comment is interesting.. Every intelligent, well-thought out, even philosophical musing have been from… atheists, while those (Or rather -this-) comment, which is belittling, condescending, even threatening, comes from the mind of someone religious.
Gosh darn it, the homeschooled boy has done found the ‘enter’ key on their innernets machine, and is dribblin’ on the keyboard. Agin!
Yes, I know. I am being deliberately offensive. Then again, Ethan, I can’t think of anything much more offensive than what you just threw at Mr Paul, like an orang-utan with a handful of feces. Not speak to his daughters for a year? What kind of malevolent cretin are you?
Apologies to Ray Sotkiewicz for being an unpleasant atheist, and becoming the exception to his rule, but sometimes being nice just doesn’t cut it.
Well done, Mr Bell. I come from a country where atheism is no big deal, and religious enthusiasm is considered a bit odd; it’s mainly older, less-educated people who make up the dwindling congregations. Although, to be honest, my wife has an uncle who lived in Alabama for a little while, and went off to China to run some sort of Christian mission. He gets very worked-up about God, but no one takes him seriously and he gets laughed at a bit. I suppose he’d be a senator if he lived in the US these days. In the USA of today you have taken a very brave step, what with the Tea Party and other bizarre manifestations of some sort of deep neurosis emerging from beneath their various rocks. Good luck with all that. I think you might need it.
You might find atheism a bit of a let-down after all the drama of religion. No heaven, no raptures, no hell, no demons, no angels, no great Manichean tales of good versus evil. Some of us tend to get very worked-up about things but, really, we’re like a huge herd of cats, wandering all over the place, some of us getting terribly curious about all sorts of odd stuff, poking things to make them do something, fighting with one another (usually over nothing), occasionally teasing the religious attack dogs that unwisely stray into our domain. Of course, a lot of us are also lazily asleep in the sun, not really thinking about much at all. Like cats, there is not one, central agenda. There is no grand plan. We cannot be herded. We aren’t secretly meeting at midnight to sacrifice virgins and plot the rise of Marx (well, maybe Groucho Marx, but not the grumpy one with the big beard.)
A lot of atheists seem to like science. I know I do. I like what Michael Shermer said – science is a verb, not a noun. Its just a tool. You don’t ‘believe’ in it – it’s a method you apply to a problem. It’s entirely up to you if you apply it to religion. After all, religions – all religions – are a type of explanation for the things that bother us humans in the bitter watches of the night. You know. Life. Death. Did we pay the gas bill? All that nonsense.
Anyway, I just want to wish you luck. You are being braver that a lot of people I know.
Admittedly, I’m skeptical of what you’re doing. It’s not about your questioning your faith. It’s about the grandstand of taking a journey away from God for a year and publically blogging about it. It’s not a quiet personal journey, but one that appears to be designed to garner widespread attention. Since I do not know you, I’ll simply assume that this is an honest spiritual journey to discover what your faith means. I cannot help but feel that you will return to Christianity with a newfound fervor after having spent a year without God and deciding that your journey into “atheism” proved it was wrong. A year from now, I’ll be happy to have my skepticism dashed if your quest is true and real.
As others have pointed out, you cannot go on a journey of “atheism”. Unlike organized religion, atheism has little organization. It isn’t a lifestyle. It is simply the lack of a belief. To an atheist, not believing in God is little different than not believing in Santa Claus. It is not a momentous choice. It is little more than a matter of not believing in something when there is no objective evidence that it exists. Switching to atheism is not changing beliefs, but losing one. There isn’t a great deal to learn about atheism because it is not an alternate belief system.
To a religious person, not believing in God means something very different because it is not a single belief, but a belief intertwined with a social lifestyle, rituals, morality, and many other things. Religion is drummed into people from birth. It becomes so ingrained in their lives that they cannot readily dismiss it. Unlike Santa Claus, religion is practiced on an almost daily basis and is constantly being reinforced through rituals and societal pressures. Religion dates back thousands of years, so there is little documentation about how it came to be. Religion becomes something that is easier to believe than not to believe. By the time a person is old enough to make a personal choice of religious belief, the practice of religion has become so ingrained in their lives that it is nearly impossible to question it. It is not easy to doubt a lifetime devoted to a single belief.
Look at how strong beliefs of any kind are hard to shake. People invest in their beliefs. That investment can become very personal and very emotional. Often those beliefs give them a perception that they are better than people who have different ones. That can form irrational prejudices and that can become something very ugly when channeled into hatreds of other beliefs. Even something as fundamentally insignificant as brand preferences can lead to heated arguments. Mac and PC owners have constantly fought over their choices even though their products serve the same purpose.
Sports fanaticism has lead to violence and murder because the love for a home team is too great to tolerate the love of any other team. That love can be borne of little more than physical proximity to the home team. Even after sports fans move, they usually retain their loyalty to the same team. That is because a lifetime of personal emotion and commitment to a team is hard to shake off. That’s in spite of the fact that the team is only playing a game. Whether that team wins or loses has no effect on the fan’s life. Yet, the fan feels a very personal win or loss depending on how the team does.
Emotions run even higher with politics and religion because there can be a real effect on a person instead of only an emotional toll. The internet now allows people to filter the news and information they receive along political affiliations and by the things they believe. They no longer hear alternate voices and opinions. They only hear the news and information they want to hear. That presents the scary situation where beliefs are no longer challenged. Beliefs become more important than realities.
People come by their faith in one of two methods. They are either born into it or they convert to it. The vast majority are born into their faiths. They follow the religion of their parents. There is no conscious decision to choose their faith. There is no analysis of different religions to choose which is best. Babies and children have little choice other than to follow the religion that their parent follows. That introduces them to a societal structure that they conform to. Most people are conformists. Changing one’s established religion is an act of nonconformity that can alienate a person from the society they have lived in. That fear keeps them in their religion even when the religious practices about them begins to conflict with their morality or expectations of their religion.
I cannot remember when I became an atheist. There was no momentous decision point. It happened in my childhood some years before junior high. I was brought up Catholic and went to Catholic School for a number of years. I remember going to church as a child. While religious, my family wasn’t deeply religious. I don’t remember praying before meals or reading the Bible at home. At some point, my family stopped going to church and I cannot recall any reason for it or when it happened. It simply stopped being something we did.
I was a very inquisitive child and read How and Why books (I was a child of the sixties) and other science books I could find. I didn’t like Catholic School. The nuns at my school were cruel. The ruler was a constant method of punishment often administered to every boy in the school if one boy did wrong. I suspect that the sadistic methods of the nuns made me question the value of religion when God’s servants could be so mean. The interest in science probably made me wonder where God fit into an increasingly explained universe. I have never read a book on atheism. It was probably many years before I even realized there was a word for people who don’t believe in God. I have never participated in an atheist organization. I cannot think of why somebody would. Atheism is not a belief system. It is simply a word that acknowledges the lack of believing in gods that preside over our universe.
It’s only been in the last decade that I’ve decided to read the Bibles to understand religion better. My reading of the Old Testament has only cemented my feeling that religion is a completely man-made phenomenon and not the historical record of a God presiding over mankind. If somebody else reads it differently, that’s fine. Having read the Old Testament, I’ve done something that few followers of that holy book have ever done–which is read it.
The religious masses place their faith in the hands of the few that preach it rather than adopting a personal understanding of their religion by reading it for themselves. It’s similar to only seeing news politically aligned to their beliefs. They place their knowledge in the hands of a few leaders that tell them what they want to hear instead of learning and understanding on their own. That allows the religious masses to be lead astray. It’s one of the reasons why Christianity is trapped in a myopic political world of homophobia and anti-abortion fever. To an outsider, it’s hard to believe that this is the faith established by Christ, a man known for tolerance and helping the disadvantaged.
If you want to question your belief in God, read the Old Testament with an open mind and evaluate it by the words you read and not by what you were taught the words
Pay attention to the disconnects between the Old and the New Testament. Some of the disconnects are not minor things. Heaven and hell, as places where good and bad souls go, are essentially missing from the Old Testament. The whole concept of redemption and an eternal afterlife is the backbone of the New Testament and Christian faith. Yet, it is somehow missing in a document that comprises thousands of pages with the Old Testament. Did God forget to tell Moses and the other great figures of the Old Testament about these concepts?
Another thing about the Old Testament that surprised me is that God was not the only god, just the only one who should be worshipped by his chosen people. There were many other gods competing for worshipers. I only recall one passage that sort of intimated that God was the one true god, but the meaning shifted in different translations. The historical record of those other gods is largely gone because of the Old Testament’s God directed genocide upon any society that dared to worship other gods. Oddly, God didn’t seem to reproach Moses for naming his brother Aaron as his chief priest even though it was Aaron who made the Golden Bull that Moses’ followers worshipped while God was giving him the Ten Commandments–nor does the Old Testament register any disapproval when Moses slaughtered thousands of those worshippers in their sleep that night.
I would estimate that somewhere around 95%-99% of the many laws and observances established by God in the Old Testament were ignored in the New Testament.
There are so many other requirements in the Old Testament that are not practiced in the New Testament with little more than vague passages used to explain why they are no longer observed. It is very rare for the New Testament to specifically say that a requirement of the Old Testament need no longer apply. More often, oblique references, such as not to judge how others do things, are taken to mean that nobody needs to follow the old requirement (which, frankly, is not the same thing because it really means each person is responsible for how they individually keep their faith). There are requirements for circumcision, unclean foods not to be eaten, cleansing rituals; death sentences for gay men, adulterers, unruly children, people that work on the Sabbath, etc.; a multitude of festivals and occasions to be celebrated and honored, and many other things that ceased being God’s laws and mandated observances.
Atoning for sins in the Old Testament involved an excruciatingly detailed ritual of sacrifice (as opposed to confession adopted by Christianity). The sacrificial ritual required by God in Exodus is well over a dozen pages long with God describing the dimensions of the temple and altar to be used and the raiment of the priests down to the number and materials of buttons that were to be worn. The ritual involved splashing blood about and the priests dabbing it on specific locations of their bodies. I only found one passage in the New Testament that mentioned sacrifices and didn’t offer an explanation for why they weren’t performed anymore other than to say that they aren’t. There are few requirements in the Old Testament that are remotely as detailed as the one for sacrifices. The sheer degree of specificity for sacrifices shows the degree of importance God placed on the act. It doesn’t seem right to ignore something that God thought was that important.
It’s hard to believe in an infallible being that has existed for all time when that being cannot craft laws and requirements that can stand the test of time and were abandoned in a couple thousand years. The universe is estimated to be about 14 billion years old. A couple thousand years would seem a fraction of a second for a God that has lived longer than that the age of the universe. That leaves two possibilities. One is that God is not real. The other is that the Bibles aren’t entirely correct–which makes them questionable documents to trust by every single word.
A person cannot wholly understand their faith without becoming more intimately familiar with the holy books that define that faith. Your journey will be incomplete without that knowledge. I don’t know that there is much to be gained by reading books on atheism because atheism is the lack of a belief. It would be more fruitful to become more knowledgeable in the holy books that define the faith.
What you are undergoing is less a crisis of faith than a crisis in how that faith is practiced. If you’ve been following Pope Frances, you’ll see that he is taking small steps, he is trying to bring Catholicism back to a more loving and inclusive nature. Modern religion has become connected to politics in ways that distort religion for political gain. Too much of modern religion seems to fuel prejudices and hatreds. Hate is sadly a more powerful force than love. The religious message of love and helping others becomes too often lost in the practice of organized religion.
I am not against religion. I am against how religion is often used as a foundation to foster hatred and cruelty. Part of your concerns about religion is based on how you’ve seen gays and women marginalized in organized religion. Maybe you will come out of this with a greater knowledge to allow you to be a force for better change in how religion is applied.
Admittedly, tl;dr, but I got as far as the word “atheism” in scare quotes. That was really alienating to me. I read no further in your post.
And then I wrote a very long rebuttal involving the questionable use of scare quotes. I deleted it. But now, I can’t remember why it was so important to write it.
I wish you well on your journey, Richard. I just hope you know that we are real and not something you have to put in scare quotes.
Sorry if I scared you by putting atheism in quotes. I did it because Mr. Bell cannot go on a journey of atheism without giving up a belief in God. That is not something that he had done per his entry on Dec 31, “In short, I will do whatever I can to enter the world of atheism and live, for a year, as an atheist. It’s important to make the distinction that I am not an atheist. At least not yet. I am not sure what I am. That’s part of what this year is about.” I put the word in quotes because he’s not using the word by its full accurate definition.
The reality is that Mr. Bell isn’t going to live as an atheist for a year, but is living the way the majority of American Christians live (if the statistics in the below blog are accurate). The majority of American Christians do not attend church regularly and are probably not practicing Christians in the traditional sense. While many may believe in God and Jesus Christ, they aren’t going to church or praying or studying the Bibles on a regular basis, if at all. What Mr. Bell is really doing is taking a year sabbatical from formally practicing Christianity and will be living more as an average American Christian than he will be living as an atheist.
If Mr. Bell wants to truly understand his faith, he needs to expand the goals of his research. His goal, to live as an atheist for a year, is based on his personal misunderstandings of what that means due to the religious life he has had. By narrowly focusing on atheism, he is not going to get an understanding of the various levels of Christianity that are being practiced. He may not learn that the way an atheist lives and a non-practicing Christian lives are the same with the exception of a belief in God. He should be studying the various Christian denominations to come to an understanding of why there are so many and whether the differences mean anything. Just because he was born and indoctrinated into one denomination doesn’t mean he was in the right one (if there is such a thing). He should be studying other religions because Christianity only makes up a third of the world’s religious population. Are 2/3rds of the world’s religious followers going to hell for not following the right god(s)? He also needs to study the Bibles of his faith with an open mind. Even though the Old and New Testaments are supposed to be one continuous story–they aren’t. The God in each have different rules and laws and personalities. To get a full picture of religion, Mr. Bell needs to open up his paths of exploration to all forms of religious expression. The singular focus of religion/no-religion doesn’t touch on the full range of the subject.
http://www.examiner.com/article/troubling-statistics-reveal-true-state-of-christianity-america
To ‘Paul’,
I’ve read your replies here and one thing impresses me about you.
You know your bible. inside and out, you know it. Without fail. .. of that I am thoroughly convinced. I am not nearly prepared to debate you on the writings of the bible.
I also know, that one can be completely versed and educated in a work of fiction. My time on this planet has led me down some interesting paths. I have encountered many people who know the story of the “Hobbit” Inside and out.. hands down the utmost authorities on… a complete work of fiction.
Your posts here have been interesting… but more importantly, you have gone “Down in the weeds” elaborating on what this or that verse means, etc, ad-nauseum. Dare I say into so much grandiose detail, that you have lost sight of the initial argument.
Unfortunately many of the people debating you have gone down in the weeds with you.
…over a work of fiction.
Your “god”, such as he is, has been deafeningly silent in contrast to 2000 years ago where he had a lot to say about about a lot of things.. a LOT to say…. And yet… that voice has grown eerily silent.
There’s no debating that mankind today is a LOT worse than it was during the ‘Great Flood’.. so where are those damning waters now?
When the biblical scholars of 2000 years ago died off, so did the voice of your god.
Curious, wouldn’t you say?
Of course today when we encounter people that claim “God has spoken to them!” we think them slightly crazy…
Your god is nothing more than a work of fiction, borne from the minds of men that had no scientific ability to explain the beauty around them, so god was invented in the image of man.
What I find fascinating, especially when “Paul” feels he is backed into a corner in his theist arguments, is that the only rationale left at his disposal, is fear. (Burning in hell and all that nonsense.)
Any god that threatens to burn his children in hell because they won’t love him, is a human construct, a construct far below that of a god who supposedly created this entire universe.
To me, the notion sounds like that of a drunken father on another rampage.
//What I find fascinating, especially when “Paul” feels he is backed into a corner in his theist arguments, is that the only rationale left at his disposal, is fear. (Burning in hell and all that nonsense.)//
My name is Paul, so you can stop using the quotes. I don’t warn of hell and judgment because I’m “backed in a corner.” I have yet to be in such a place, and if anything, I’ve done the backing. Atheists have an amazing way of not answering questions when pressed. I warn of hell and judgment because they are real and those who reject Jesus Christ are going there. You, or anyone else, not believing it has nothing to do with its reality.
//Any god that threatens to burn his children in hell because they won’t love him, is a human construct, a construct far below that of a god who supposedly created this entire universe.//
1. There isn’t a person in hell today who was God’s child. They are the children of the devil, and so are all those who don’t trust in him. I was once, but when I made Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior, THEN I became a child of God. 2. Hell isn’t a love-me-or-else threat. Hell is a place where rebels reside. God owns this universe. He made it and he has the right to make the rules. If you come to him you come in HIS terms, not yours. Those in hell either outright rejected him (like you’re doing) or tried to go to him on their own terms. It doesn’t work that way.
I don’t feel the least “backed into a corner” right now, but I’m telling you that you are going to hell if you don’t come to God on his terms before you take your last breath. And his terms is the Gospel message contained in the New Testament. The best thing anyone reading this can do is read the New Testament and find God.
//To me, the notion sounds like that of a drunken father on another rampage.//
It’s nothing like that at all, and it’s the wickedness of your heart that causes you to make such an analogy.
Figures that Paul thinks we need to “answer his questions.” You are right Ray. Just like a child.
>
Paul,
I just finished reading “A Universe from Nothing”, by Lawrence M. Krauss, a noted physicist.
When I walked away from religion, (I was once ‘Saved’ but I don’t think it took 😉 my biggest disappointment was that I would never know the answer to how we got here, why is there something rather than nothing, how many angels really do fit on the head of a pin. (Ok, maybe not THAT one, but the disappointment was still real regarding the other questions)
That is, until something curious happened in Switzerland last July. Scientists have posited the existence of a particle that would account for all the ‘empty’ space in the universe, negative energy & dark matter. Last July they found it, after roughly 50 years of research using the Large Hadron Collider.
Dubbed the Higgs-Boson, this newly discovered particle answers many questions, and also answers how the universe got here in the first place.
Unfortunately (Or not, depending on your world view) the answers are provovative in that they remove the need for a creator (There’s math behind all this that proves 50 years of theories) And, if there was a createor, he/she/it didn’t have a choice in our universes creation. Quantum mechanics just ‘made it happen’. (QM can do that… )
So, because of quantum mechanics, our universe is basically one giant cosmic accident. (Again, proven by math and tons of research)
If the universe is an accident, then so are we.
Does that make our lives meaningless? Not to me. In fact it makes my brief time on this pale blue dot all that more fascinating and precious. For me, that single idea enlightened me and now I am at peace with everything and all my questions dating as far back as childhood, regarding how we got here.
There’s no need for a giant invisible guy in the sky nor any need for scary monsters or devils to keep me in fear.
The difference between our ‘faiths’, is that mine is shakable now. When answers no longer fit into this cosmic puzzle, like any scientist or researcher, we toss out thos answers and search for new ones, hopefully more correct ones.
By contrast, your faith, is unshakable. That is not a good thing if that’s what you’re thinking. It leaves one close-minded and resistant to new ideas, concepts, and fact. (Plate tectonics, anyone?)
Science can count it’s angels. Christianity can’t.
Paul, I‘ll put forth a challenge to you: Read the book, “A Universe from Nothing”. You probably won’t, but thought I’d throw that out there.
…because in 2 trillion years the universe will have erased any trace of itself and cosmologists will be left wondering why the Milky way is the only observable object in the night sky, and this conversation will cease to matter, if it did at all.
I’ll close with the words of noted chemist, Jesse Pinkman:
“Science, bitches!”
Ray,
I read that book recently, too. I notice that a few others on this blog have referenced it, as well. As I recall, Krauss put explained it more as a currently plausible hypothesis that is under active investigation than as being proven theory on the order of relativity or quantum mechanics. There are other hypotheses that cannot yet be ruled out. Nonetheless, this is an intriguing hypothesis. I also noted in the book that he had to deal with the question of how one defines “nothing” and admitted that there are metaphysical issues with whether his “nothing” is exactly what is meant in metaphysics. There’s much room for some very interesting discussions on Krauss’ ideas so well presented in that book. 1/15/14, 12:17 CST
We could define “nothing” as “God:” as set of symbols representing “null.”
Todd,
As you wish. Sounds a bit Buddhist. 1/15/14, 12:57 CST
It could be. But then I’d be unsure what you mean by Buddhist. I could also create a set called (black lesbian witches) and fill it. Or, I could do (something else) Or (both) Or (both and something else) Or (both or something else) = (nothing) or (I could put all that together as one thing) and put it with (this) that I found earlier and then that (means something) + (means something) or… and breathless, now because Jesus loves you… (black lesbian witches)
Paul has infinite space to maneuver. I’m interested if he will agree to common ground.
//We could define “nothing” as “God:” as set of symbols representing “null.”//
Watching this reminded me of the above comment.
Ray, I probably won’t read Krauss’ book for two simple reasons: 1.) I don’t have time, and I have a stack of books ahead of any new ones (I used to be a bookseller and have a big collection), and 2.) I’m not a scientist and would probably get bogged down in the concepts and terminology. I’m not afraid of being convinced by his arguments. I just don’t see myself reading it. But, who knows, maybe if I have time I’ll pick it up.
Here is what I do know from the perspective of common sense. Nothing means “no thing.” It means the absence of anything material or immaterial. If Krauss is trying to redefine “nothing” that tells me right away that he’s shooting in the dark. He knows that nothing can’t create. It’s scientifically impossible. So he’s attempting to force his naturalistic worldview by redefining concrete words. It doesn’t work that way.
You say that your “faith” (and I’m glad you called it that, because that is what it is) is shakable and mine unshakable. You’re right about mine, but I submit that you’re isn’t as shakable as you might imagine. Let me ask you a question. Is God a possibility? You basically answered it in your previous comments: “…the answers are provovative in that they remove the need for a creator…” So that means on this issue you’re unshakable. That means if the evidence ever pointed to a Creator God, you wouldn’t acknowledge it.
Have you seen Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”? it does a pretty good job at showing just how unshakable the scientific establishment is. O, they are “shakable” WITHIN the parameters of their own worldview, but that is it. Try to propose that the evidence goes outside that worldview, and watch out. All that is left for you is the axe. The entire documentary proves that God is not an option, even if he’s the most logical option. That’s not true science. That is religious devotion. I especially like the one part where Ben is stilling with one guy (a mathematician, I think) and the guy says (paraphrase), “After 4 or 5 beers all evolutionists talk about the plausibility of Intelligent Design.” In other words, when they are drunk the real thoughts of their hearts come out of mouths that would otherwise never say such things. Very revealing.
I know that you understand that we all are the same evidence to look at. My faith is not built on blind faith. I have examined the evidence just like you and I have come to the conclusion that God created it all. And because he’s perfect and without error or fault, there cannot be a future scientific discovery that would change that. God made science. What he made can’t contradict the reality of him. That’s not logical. So, you’re right about me not being shakable. But I believe I have found perfection. Why would I want to be shaken from that?
I’d encourage you to keep looking. Never stop seeking truth. I’d also encourage you to look up opposing critiques of Krauss’ book. That may bring some balance to what you’re embracing now. There are some brilliant men and women, just as much a scientists as the next person, who totally embrace a Creator God. It’s not just the simple or unintelligent who are believers, and I think Ravi Zacharias was correct when he said that atheism is not built on evidential arguments. A person is an atheist for MORAL reasons, not intellectual reasons.
Finally, you said, “Does that make our lives meaningless? Not to me.” But in the end, you have to admit that, if you’re right, life really doesn’t have meaning. If we are an accident we have no meaning. Our lives don’t have real value, and that is hopelessness. I’m glad I have hope in a living and loving God who has given me a purpose for living. I can love my fellow man and tell him of this loving God, because he loves them, too. THAT gives real meaning to life.
Ray, Have you seen “Evolution vs. God”? It’s free to watch and I encourage you to watch it. Be sure to note the inability of supposedly qualified men to answer a simple question about evolution. Their lack of answers should open your eyes.
Paul, see my reply to the video by R. Comfort here: http://quinesqueue.blogspot.com/2013/08/lying-for-jesus.html
And if you want to get those answers so you really will understand the Theory of Evolution (which Comfort clearly doesn’t) you can get it all by reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Show_on_Earth:_The_Evidence_for_Evolution
//And if you want to get those answers so you really will understand the Theory of Evolution (which Comfort clearly doesn’t) you can get it all by reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greatest_Show_on_Earth:_The_Evidence_for_Evolution//
Oh, yes! I’m sure a book by Dawkins will be as unbiased as one can get. LOL!!!! Are you serious?
The double-standard out here is thick (and stinky). You atheists claim that creationists don’t understand evolution and are, therefore, wrong about our conclusions. So in order to set us straight you refer us to Richard Dawkins, the world’s most outspoken atheist and defender of atheism. And you see no problem with his definition of atheism and would think it strange that we would either. “Obviously,” you would say, “he’s a scientist and not biased at all.”
Mind if I post few suggestions of my own from Duane Gish or Henry Morris? Both certified scientists who examined the same evidence and read the same books Dawkins has read.
Bob,
The book was a tall order for me, not being all that versed in quantum theory and some of the concepts that sometimes turned my brain into a pretzel during the reading.
That said I’m not surprised I came away with some inaccurate conclusions.
The beauty of having shakeable faith! 😀
Watch Lawrence present the concepts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
// Ray, I probably won’t read Krauss’ book for two simple reasons: 1.) I don’t have time //
What would your response be if I told you I didn’t have time to read the bible?
// Krauss is trying to redefine “nothing” that tells me right away that he’s shooting in the dark. //
Actually the physics behind the search for ‘nothing’ isn’t shooting in the dark. The science is testable and it is redefining our concept of ‘nothing’
// He knows that nothing can’t create. It’s scientifically impossible //
Not anymore…
// but I submit that you’re isn’t as shakable as you might imagine. Let me ask you a question. Is God a possibility? //
Based on the evidence presented, I’d have to say no.
// That means if the evidence ever pointed to a Creator God, you wouldn’t acknowledge it. //
Au’ Contraire! If the evidence ever presented itself (And I’m not talking about the whole “Just look around you!” or the “Just trust me on this…” evidence) I’m talking about the “Hey! What’s up, Ray?” booming voice from the sky evidence, which IS testable. If THAT evidence ever presented itself I’d be the first in line for church. Oh… and the beer’s on me.
// Have you seen Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”? it does a pretty good job at showing just how unshakable the scientific establishment is. O, they are “shakable” WITHIN the parameters of their own worldview, but that is it. Try to propose that the evidence goes outside that worldview, and watch out. //
That’s because your ‘evidence’ isn’t demonstrative, testable, repeatable, or even exists, which is the very foundation of the scientific community. That Christians continue to be flummoxed by this reaction from the scientific community is baffling. What you consider evidence and what scientists consider evidence are worlds apart.
// “After 4 or 5 beers all evolutionists talk about the plausibility of Intelligent Design.” In other words, when they are drunk the real thoughts of their hearts come out of mouths that would otherwise never say such things. Very revealing. //
No, they don’t. That’s a made-up Christian fantasy, which is also untestable.
// A person is an atheist for MORAL reasons, not intellectual reasons. //
Paul, that is a blatant, unfounded and patently false assumption. Intellectual reasons are what shaped my atheism. I was already moral.
// Finally, you said, “Does that make our lives meaningless? Not to me.” But in the end, you have to admit that, if you’re right, life really doesn’t have meaning. If we are an accident we have no meaning. Our lives don’t have real value, and that is hopelessness. //
“Life” on a cosmic level may very well be meaningless in that construct but MY life is by no means meaningless. My life has meaning for all the stray dogs my wife and I help to rescue and find good homes for. It has meaning for the various charities we donate to and the lives they help along the way. It has meaning for that homeless man I helped last week to find a warm place to sleep and a hot meal. It has meaning for my son whom I raised and made sure he got a good education. Even my dog’s life isn’t meaningless as she gives me great joy and love at the end of a long day.
I am reminded of the starfish story.
A young couple walking along the beach and the man finds a starfish that had washed ashore. He picks it up and throws it back. His wife says “Why bother? They’ll just wash ashore again. It won’t make any difference.” To which the man replied: “It made a difference to that one…”
That is not hopelessness.
Bravo, Ray. I gave up a long time on talking to him because of all the effort it takes to continually correct him, but you (amazingly) continue to do so and to do so _well_. Cheers!
//What would your response be if I told you I didn’t have time to read the bible?//
I’d say you have every right to read it or not read it. I would also tell you that it is absolute truth, and that every person on earth should read it. And my feelings agree with some of the greatest minds in history. I’m sure Mr. Krauss has some good things to say, but he would even agree that what he wrote is not absolute truth.
// Krauss is trying to redefine “nothing” that tells me right away that he’s shooting in the dark. //
//Actually the physics behind the search for ‘nothing’ isn’t shooting in the dark. The science is testable and it is redefining our concept of ‘nothing’//
But nothing is still nothing. We know that matter is not eternal and hasn’t always existed. So it came into being at some point. Since there were not observable witnesses, it’s impossible for science to offer a perfect answer, or even a plausible one that could be believed, if you approach the issue from a naturalistic viewpoint. Nothing does not create. That’s a fact.
// He knows that nothing can’t create. It’s scientifically impossible. -Paul
Not anymore… -Ray//
Well, of course there HAS to be answer to this massive problem. When one starts with a preconceived worldview, they have to find an answer that fits that worldview. Even to the point of making it up, if need be.
//Based on the evidence presented, I’d have to say no.//
So then you admit that there is a portion of your “faith” that is unshakable. At least you’re being honest, and I can respect that.
//Au’ Contraire! If the evidence ever presented itself (And I’m not talking about the whole “Just look around you!” or the “Just trust me on this…” evidence) I’m talking about the “Hey! What’s up, Ray?” booming voice from the sky evidence, which IS testable. If THAT evidence ever presented itself I’d be the first in line for church. Oh… and the beer’s on me.//
So essentially God has to speak to you on your terms? Won’t happen. The “Hey, Ray” was given a long time ago to everyone, not just people named “Ray.” It’s found in the Bible. That is God’s message to you and all mankind. Like the old hymn says, “How firm a foundation ye saints of the Lord, is laid for your faith in his excellent Word. What more can he say than to you he hath said…?”
Could God call your name vocally? Of course. But you’re not in charge, he is. If you come to him you’ll do it his way.
//That’s because your ‘evidence’ isn’t demonstrative, testable, repeatable, or even exists, which is the very foundation of the scientific community. That Christians continue to be flummoxed by this reaction from the scientific community is baffling. What you consider evidence and what scientists consider evidence are worlds apart.//
That’s not true! The evidence for God is all around you in the natural world. Furthermore, you have the changed lives of those who have trusted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. There is plenty of evidence for those seeking it. There is none for those not really seeking it.
// “After 4 or 5 beers all evolutionists talk about the plausibility of Intelligent Design.” In other words, when they are drunk the real thoughts of their hearts come out of mouths that would otherwise never say such things. Very revealing. //
//No, they don’t. That’s a made-up Christian fantasy, which is also untestable.//
LOL! It’s not untestable if a mic were taped to the collar of the guy who told the story. But you know what? Even a recording wouldn’t matter. Even the confession of the most respected scientists wouldn’t matter. None of that matters, because the “evidence” is never really good enough to be evidence to you guys. You know why? Because you’re committed to atheism on moral grounds. You don’t want to be held accountable for your actions. The argument has never been about evidence or intelligence. Never.
//Paul, that is a blatant, unfounded and patently false assumption. Intellectual reasons are what shaped my atheism. I was already moral.//
You’re wrong, Ray. Moral based on who’s definition of moral? All of us are better than our neighbor, but what makes our morality “good” and another’s “bad”? How you you KNOW that you were morally good? Based on what?
//“Life” on a cosmic level may very well be meaningless in that construct but MY life is by no means meaningless. My life has meaning for all the stray dogs my wife and I help to rescue and find good homes for. It has meaning for the various charities we donate to and the lives they help along the way. It has meaning for that homeless man I helped last week to find a warm place to sleep and a hot meal. It has meaning for my son whom I raised and made sure he got a good education. Even my dog’s life isn’t meaningless as she gives me great joy and love at the end of a long day.//
Ah, but you could have all that as well as the knowledge that life ultimately DOES have meaning. And it does.
//I am reminded of the starfish story.
A young couple walking along the beach and the man finds a starfish that had washed ashore. He picks it up and throws it back. His wife says “Why bother? They’ll just wash ashore again. It won’t make any difference.” To which the man replied: “It made a difference to that one…”//
Yep! Great story and the reason I keep preaching the Gospel to anyone who will listen. Most reject (as the Bible said they would), but the ones who take it are the single starfish who got to live. I’m praying for you, Ray, in Seattle, Washington (I was there last year). I’m praying that God will open your eyes.
I’d encourage you to listen to one of my favorite writers and speakers, Ravi Zacharias, on the existence of God.
Got evidence?
Plenty. But what evidence would satisfy you?
Start presenting it and find out. So far, you have been all preaching, but no evidence to back it up. If you want to believe what you do, that is fine with me, but if you want to convince others that it is actually true, you have the burden of backing it up. Saying things like “prior great minds have believed this” carries no weight because prior great minds have been wrong about any number of things (and anyone before Darwin does not count at all). That is why I always ask believers:
Got evidence?
//Saying things like “prior great minds have believed this” carries no weight because prior great minds have been wrong about any number of things…//
Could that include Darwin?
Yes, that does apply to Darwin. That is why we check the things he wrote against the objective evidence. Nothing Darwin said is held as true just because he was a smart guy, he had the backing for almost all he said, and where he made errors, those have been corrected by 150 years of continuing science. Now, as for what you want us to believe:
Got evidence?
Good! Actually, Darwin didn’t have all the answers (obviously) and hoped that future generations would confirm his theory. It hasn’t happened.
Question: How many times have you read the Bible from cover to cover?
Paul, I am asking you to present the evidence to back up your beliefs, such that any of us would think you have truth. I am not asking you to believe anything I might present; I am not a person of faith. This is about why you believe what you believe. We have heard enough about what you believe, but nothing to justify that. If you want to admit that you believe it because it makes sense to you or makes you feel good, that is fine for you, but that does not necessarily transfer to anyone else. If you want that transfer to happen you have to present the case.
Got evidence?
Of course. I’m just trying to get an understanding of who I’m dealing with first. I’d like to know how many times you’ve read the Bible cover to cover.
You may assume that I have read the material. But if you are going to rely on any of it for evidence you will have to provide a foundation. Who wrote the books of the Bible, and when? Are you familiar with modern textural analysis and the Documentary Hypothesis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
Just as I don’t accept things from the Book of Mormon or the Koran as true without foundation just because they are in books that some people hold as true, the Jewish or Christian scriptures are no more privileged. Now back to you,
Got evidence?
//You may assume that I have read the material.//
Seems elusive. My question wasn’t to deep, was it? How many time have you read the Bible through cover to cover? We just simply can’t move on until you answer that question.
//But if you are going to rely on any of it for evidence you will have to provide a foundation.//
Agreed. And such a foundation has been laid for generations. I’ll be happy to post my reasons, but you also know that you could easily Google it if you were really interested.
//Who wrote the books of the Bible, and when?//
40 different authors over a period of 1,500 years, and all in agreement like a divine puzzle. Rats! I gave away one of the proofs.
//Are you familiar with modern textural analysis and the Documentary Hypothesis?//
Yes and yes. The latter lacks any real credibility from most biblical scholars. But it sure does make it convenient place for skeptics to hang their hat on.
Are you familiar with these things to any great degree?
//Just as I don’t accept things from the Book of Mormon or the Koran as true without foundation just because they are in books that some people hold as true, the Jewish or Christian scriptures are no more privileged. Now back to you,//
I agree 100%.
//Got evidence?//
Absolutely. And I will give it once you answer my question above. Back to you!
Paul I have informed you that I am familiar with the material. If you have evidence to present, then present it. I am interested to find out why you believe what you believe. If you wish to stop and withhold your “evidence” I will simply not have the opportunity to put it to the test. It’s up to you.
Got evidence?
//Paul I have informed you that I am familiar with the material. If you have evidence to present, then present it. I am interested to find out why you believe what you believe. If you wish to stop and withhold your “evidence” I will simply not have the opportunity to put it to the test. It’s up to you.//
I didn’t ask you if you were familiar with the “material,” whatever that is. I asked you how many times you’ve read the Bible from cover to cover. Why are you running from that question?
I’m happy to provide the evidence, as I have repeatedly stated. I’m just waiting for you to answer a simple question. The choice to continue is up to you.
Perhaps you want to stop because you know that you’re not prepared to discuss this issue due to lack of understanding about it? There is no shame in admitting that. I’ll let you back out if you want.
Well, you can put me to the test, if you are willing to present your “evidence.” Why do you believe what you believe?
Got evidence?
I’m not interested in tests. Your refusal to answer a relatively easy and direct question reminds me of a discussion Jesus had with he chief priests and the scribes of this day. They approached him and questioned his authority. He responded that he would answer their question if they would answer his question. The refused to answer and his reply was, “Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.” (Luke 20)
That is my answer to you if you are unable to answer a simple question.
Did that really happen? If you believe it did, why do you believe it?
Got evidence?
//Did that really happen? If you believe it did, why do you believe it?//
Yep! Sure did. Every word. I believe it because it’s true.
So! How many times have you read the Bible from cover to cover?
So, you don’t know if it really happened?
Got evidence?
Well, rats! I guess I’ll have to call it a night without getting my question answered. O, how will I even sleep? (Ha!)
Two days in a row of unanswered questions from atheist. You guys are starting to get a reputation. I guess I’ll just have to get used to disappointment in this area. LOL.
Actually, I may take a break for a while. Getting busy on this end.
Ta, ta.
Well, it is the standard pattern. Believers preach at us but when we ask for what backs that up such that we should think it is true, we don’t receive it. If you can’t convince other rational people who want to know the truth, what makes you think that you have not mislead yourself?
//Well, it is the standard pattern. Believers preach at us but when we ask for what backs that up such that we should think it is true, we don’t receive it. If you can’t convince other rational people who want to know the truth, what makes you think that you have not mislead yourself?//
So, how many times have you read the Bible from cover to cover?
And, no, it’s not a standard pattern for me, I can promise you that. This isn’t my first trip around the barn.
It’s time for me to move on because 1.) I’m running out of time to continue at this pace, and 2.) I don’t see the benefit of continuing. You want to ask the questions and press the issues, but when you’re asked a question, you refuse to answer it, and then have the audacity to infer that I’m a coward who can’t back up his claims. What poppycock!
I can assure you I can back them up. But I’m not bowing to your terms of fair play. I’m not on trial. If you want me to answer you, then you show some respect and courtesy and answer questions when asked. If refuse, then YOU shut down the discussion, not me.
G’nite all. Sleep well.
Paul, I have answered your question to the extent that personal information about me has anything to do with it. How many times I have read scripture has nothing to do with what makes it true or not. I did not call you a “coward” or any other derogatory thing, I am simply asking you to give evidence for things that you assert are true. Look back in this thread and you will see that every time I have asserted that something was true, I gave links for the backing. Why don’t you do the same? Why do you believe what you believe?
Got evidence?
//Paul, I have answered your question to the extent that personal information about me has anything to do with it. How many times I have read scripture has nothing to do with what makes it true or not. I did not call you a “coward” or any other derogatory thing…//
You have not answered my question at all, and it’s important to the issue because you can’t debate something you don’t understand. And while you did not use the word “coward,” you implied it by saying that it was a “standard pattern” for believers to run when they are pressed for answers. Let me make it very clear to you: I’m not running away because I can’t defend my beliefs. Not in the least. I’m taking a break because I don’t have the time to dedicate to these debates at the pace I have been, and because you refuse to answer a simple question.
You don’t know the Bible at all, do you? How many times have you read it cover to cover?
Paul, it is a common pattern for these discussions on-line. Some have claimed that the Internet is “where religion goes to die.” I don’t hold the position that asking for evidence somehow makes believers afraid, although that may be the case for some, but more often I suspect that after people of faith are asked to present evidence to back that up, they start trying to find that evidence, for the first time in their lives, and it causes them to question the sources and authorities that they never looked behind before. I get that impression from the letters I have read from former clergy who often relate a change in their perspective when they go beyond studying what scripture says to include how it came to be written, by whom, and when. All of that comes into the discussion when asked for evidence.
So, let’s try starting at the beginning. Who do you think wrote the book of Genesis? When was it written? In whole or in parts? Do the different chapters have the same authors? How was it transmitted down the generations? How much of it comports to know history? Was Babylonian mythology inserted during the Captivity? How much was preserved during the Great Redaction under Ezra?
Again, I assure you I am familiar with the scriptures, been through these kinds of discussions for many years, and do want to know why you believe what you believe, and if you’ve:
Got evidence?
//…but more often I suspect that after people of faith are asked to present evidence to back that up, they start trying to find that evidence, for the first time in their lives, and it causes them to question the sources and authorities that they never looked behind before.//
I can assure you that is not me.
Why won’t you answer my question about reading the Bible from cover to cover? Answer it and we’ll continue.
Back to this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzE36jTw8pQ
How many times have the kids being brainwashed in this video read the Bible cover to cover?
Paul, just treat us like the kid asking questions. What do you have to say to him? I think I know the honest answer.
For formatting reasons, see my reply at the bottom of this page.
Why should atheists have all the answers Paul? What do you not have answers to?
Yes Todd, the position of lack of belief need not supply any answers. People who are interested in promoting belief, of anything, have the burden of demonstration. Why do you think that is so hard to understand?
My opinion is it is hard for Paul because when he became a “believer” it wasn’t due to the kind of adult understanding you and I might have in a dispassionate discussion about evidence. Ultimately, I think Paul channels the “intimidaton factor” that persuaded him.
AND what Altemeyer’s research discovered.
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
I will grant that Paul is materially and cognitively, “a Christian.” And I think that is a shame, for Paul. Pitiable.
//Yes Todd, the position of lack of belief need not supply any answers. People who are interested in promoting belief, of anything, have the burden of demonstration. Why do you think that is so hard to understand?//
Pardon me while I get between your hug, but the issue is not understanding what you’re asking. I have plenty of proof to provide. The issue is respect and giving what you’re asking. I’ve not asked you to provide proof of your unbelief. I asked you how many times you read a book. I do wonder why THAT is so hard to understand.
So Paul, maybe the group should have been asking for “proof” and not “evidence?” Fill us in…
You don’t have all the answers. You really don’t have any, because you refuse to answer questions. That’s just rude and has nothing to do with winning a debate or providing “evidence.”
Say it again to me, Paul. I don’t have all the answers … that feels good. 😊
I was worried I might.
Actually, Darwin didn’t have all the answers (obviously) and hoped that future generations would confirm his theory. It hasn’t happened.
You where doing so well with the first part of that sentence, then… you regurgitated the AIG, “We don’t know what the hell we are talking about, but we are going to say it hasn’t been confirmed anyway.”, plot line. The sad thing is, if it hadn’t been, modern creationists would be talking about irreducible complexity, and other sciency terms, in some vain hope that they can find a loophole to fit god into, but would, instead, be still doing what they did *prior* to all the evidence for Evolution, and just claiming that god just made everything, and all the similarities between species, identical genetic sequences, as well as differences, etc., are purely coincidental. No, they are desperate to try to explain creation as “science”. If they can’t, and every bloody thing they have come up with is vague hand waving, intentional misunderstanding of the real science, and wild assertions, then.. their version loses. Well, no, that isn’t quite right. It already lost, its just being taped back together, after going through a shredder.
But then, if you had “time” to read things published by scientists, instead of just creationists, you might bloody understand that. But, well, as you say, you don’t have “time”. I seriously wish your imaginary god had made one of the ten commandments, “Thou shalt not be lazy.” He could have replaced the, “Thou shalt not bare false witness.”, one, since none of your creationist heroes bother to follow that one either, unless “bare false witness”, somehow doesn’t mean, “Intentionally misrepresent what someone said, by selectively picking out things that support your cause, while making the speaker look bad.” Then again, I have actually seen some “good Christians” make the insane argument that, “Its fine to bare such false witness, if it serves god’s will.” Because, you know.. that was in the “fine print”, some place, possibly on the back of the stone tablets….
// Ray, I probably won’t read Krauss’ book for two simple reasons: 1.) I don’t have time //
What would your response be if I told you I didn’t have time to read the bible?
In my experience, even if you sat and read the copy they bloody handed to you, cover to cover, while you watched, you would still get:
1. Oops, wrong one.
2. But, you still need to also read – long list of apologetic.
3. You just haven’t heard the deep theological proofs of – another long list of clowns, who when asked to present their deep theological arguments end up making all the same shallow ones, then wondering what the problem is.
4. Well, you obviously just didn’t read it right, or study it long enough, or get the right holy water sprinkled over you, it, your clothes, or something else “critical” to doing it right.
I.e., always one bloody more excuse, no matter what you owned, what you read, what you studied, who under, or even what you where originally. I note one author in this very thread who started out an evangelical, and over 20 years of trying to find something that made sense in the mess, or showed in the “truth”, finally wrote the whole mess off as nonsense (Bets on Paul having time to read that either, never mind look back to the start of the thread to find it…). But, there is also places like The Apostates Chapel – https://thechapel.wordpress.com/ And once Salvation Army preacher, and an endless number of others that have met every sensible criteria for “knowing the Bible”, and they *still* get people claiming they, “just missed X random bit of truth, someplace, which would have kept them from becoming an atheist.”
To the Pauls of the world, its impossible to be wrong, therefor, the only answer is that the people that reject religion, “missed something”. It would be bloody hard to miss anything, all you have to do is publish your work, or home address, and within a week you won’t have to buy toilet paper any more, for all the Bibles people with way too much money, and no interest in actually understanding anything, will have sent you, along with other “evidence”, to try to convert you to the “proper” version of… well, its *always* Christians that do it. But, heck, I suppose its better than having Seven Day Adventists ringing the door bell all the time, since you can read them, or not, without having to be nice to the people that wasted their money sending you the books. Its a win win, or it would be, if, again, people like Paul didn’t automatically reject the idea that you own a Bible, never mind read it (based on, yeah, having favorite passages from it, to bring up, when pointing out the silly bits, just like they have favorite passages, to bring all, all the bloody time, to claim its true.) Odd how neither side bothers with the other bits, which have no relevance, at all, to their arguments…
I quite agree, Patrick, you have to watch for the rhetorical tricks coming and not take the bait. I try to keep in mind that I don’t necessarily have to present evidence that they are wrong, they have the burden of presenting evidence that they have truth that I don’t. When you are a child, they can tell you it is true because the Bible says it is true, and you stuck with it. However, as an adult, you can ask them to present evidence that differentiates their scripture from the rest of the mythology that humans have written over the ages (we are very good at that). Anyone can write a book and have that book say that what is in the book is true, but that does not make it so. The requirement that scripture be backed by objective evidence from outside scripture is the only path to reliable knowledge, all else is subject to Hitchens’ Razor:
“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
//In my experience, even if you sat and read the copy they bloody handed to you, cover to cover, while you watched, you would still get:
1. Oops, wrong one.
2. But, you still need to also read – long list of apologetic.
3. You just haven’t heard the deep theological proofs of – another long list of clowns, who when asked to present their deep theological arguments end up making all the same shallow ones, then wondering what the problem is.
4. Well, you obviously just didn’t read it right, or study it long enough, or get the right holy water sprinkled over you, it, your clothes, or something else “critical” to doing it right.//
Wow! That’s remarkably like a few atheist’s I know. Proofs abound all around them and they always say, “BUT!”
Watch. They’ll respond to my comments here and say “Give me the proof.” As soon as I give it, they will give the same four reasons (or some like them) for why those proofs aren’t proofs.
So instead of looking down your long nose in scorn and detestation (which nobody is impressed with, by the way), why not have the maturity to know and understand that ALL people do those things when they strongly believe something?
What’s so ironic is your statement at the end: “To the Pauls of the world, its impossible to be wrong…” LOL! Your frustration demonstrated in the four points above shows that you believe the exact same thing about yourself!
HaHaHaHaHaHaHa! You’ve gotten tangled in the web you set for others!
If you are interested, Ray, I have written about the subject of “nothing” re the work of Lawrence Krauss here:
http://quinesqueue.blogspot.com/2012/02/physical-nothing-v-metaphysical-nothing.html
and here:
http://quinesqueue.blogspot.com/2012/09/more-about-nothing.html
Testable, repeatable evidence that stands up to scrutiny and peer reviewing.
Which evolution doesn’t do. :-\ It’s never once been observed. It’s adhered to by faith.
Opinion is not evidence.
We finally agree.
So what’s evidence?
>
That evolution hasn’t happened? The fact that it’s never been observed. Not one single time. The fossil record is also bare (when there should be billions of “missing links”). Sorry, but the excuse of “Don’t you know how rare fossils are?” doesn’t fly. If you claim millions of years, then that is a whole lot of dead things to fossilize. There should be billions of them.
If “Time” wasn’t looked at as a hero, the idea of evolution was be considered absurd by everyone. It’s mathematically impossible.
So do you have any evidence from which your claims are apparent to a person who has never seen or read a Bible? Because the evidence science observes tell us the story without the bias of Biblical belief.
Humans know the Noah narrative is false with certainly for at least 3 good reasons (There are many many more should you need them. but just the first one seals the deal for me.): 1) the “New World” animals did not come. 2) The desalinization of the seas would have been catastrophic to all saltwater life for eons. 3) There is no source for all that damn water.
I’d add that it’s impossible for all the species (even two or seven of each kind) to fit on a boat, even one as large as Noah’s Ark. That, and there’s no evidence whatsoever of a global flood. It’s all fantasy, and when that’s demonstrated to the degree that it has been people should stop believing; but they _want_ to believe, and so they embrace willful ignorance and distortion of reality.
//I’d add that it’s impossible for all the species (even two or seven of each kind) to fit on a boat, even one as large as Noah’s Ark. That, and there’s no evidence whatsoever of a global flood. It’s all fantasy, and when that’s demonstrated to the degree that it has been people should stop believing; but they _want_ to believe, and so they embrace willful ignorance and distortion of reality.//
Both your arguments are at the elementary level of the debate on Noah’s Flood, and because you brought them up it tells me that you’ve done very little study on the issue. I’d encourage you to do some research and you’ll find that both objections are easily answered and absolutely possible.
You’ve given an opinion Paul. You agreed last night that opinion is not evidence Paul. Please provide evidence we are wrong about the possibility of the Great Flood.
>
Paul, we realize that you don’t know that Evolution has been observed, and that the fossil record is as complete as we would expect it to be given the probability that anything gets fossilized, and that it is backed by DNA evidence anyway. I don’t expect you to read the books and change your mind, but when you tell us things like the above, it feels like you are telling us that there is no proof that the world is not flat, and that no one has seen all of it at once. What you don’t know is not evidence for anything. If you want to change our minds, you are going to have to present evidence of speciation outside of common descent and natural selection like the living organisms actually created in the lab by Craig Venter.
Now, what basis is there for what you believe?
Got evidence?
And, when its wrong, its worse than not evidence. But then, this is what happens. You talk about Darwin’s finches, or anything else, and they say, “yes, but it didn’t magically leap species.” Which always gets me.. We are talking about a process that is like starting out with a giant bucket of yellow paint, and slowly adding in a single drop of blue, over and over again, though millions of years, until its finally recognizable as forest green, not just greenish, but a bloody obviously different color (i.e., species), and they want us to show someone dumping a whole bucket of blue paint, in to the yellow on, all in one go, and having it turn instantly green.
In other words, for evolution to be true, it can’t be an immensely long, drawn out process, which has trillions of transitional forms, it needs to be a **MIRACLE** and happen, all of the sudden, in one generation. Alternatively, the other stupid argument is, “There are not missing links.”, or, “Too many gaps.” This is, again, the equivalent of claiming that the forest green paint, and the original yellow paint, can’t be “related” despite being able to show exactly how much blue and yellow pigment they both have, because there are thousands of colors in between, but we only have “evidence” of Chartreuse, Lawn Green, Lime, and the only recently discovered Seaweed Green. Just look at all the “gaps”!!!
What’s even more annoying is, when one gambit fails, they then jump right back to the other ones, and try again, like.. their audience is so simple that they won’t remember they already tried it.
Paul, we realize that you don’t understand it, and that is fine, you don’t have to or accept that it is true. However, the rest of us can check it so that we do understand how it works and the evidence that backs it up. If you want us to change our minds about that you will have to present contrary evidence (with which you could then go claim your Nobel Prize.)
Got evidence?
Oh, I’m fully aware that I don’t understand evolution. No Christian creationist ever has. I guess it’s not possible, even if they are an award winning scientist. Oh, wait! I forgot that Creationists aren’t “real” scientists, either.
At least that’s what the atheists tell us. You are all so wise.
If you don’t understand it, how do you know it is not true?
Got evidence?
Because I was being sarcastic. I absolutely DO understand evolution. So do most creationists who argue against it. “You don’t understand it” is the favorite reply from the atheist when he/she is backed into a corner by someone who knows what they are talking about.
Want to see it on display? On Feb. 4th Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis is debating Bill Nye “The Science Guy.” It will be broadcast live from the Creation Museum in KY. Even though Ken Ham is highly educated and perfectly understands evolution, I can almost guarantee you that Nye will accuse him of not understanding it very early in the debate. It’s ridiculous.
Oh yes, I am looking forward to that “debate.” By coincidence that is the same date Mr. Ham has to float his bonds or the Ark Project sinks. I have carefully listened to Mr. Ham explain his position and it is that Evolution can’t be true because it would mean that Genesis is in error which would contradict his theory of the infallibility of the Bible. He does not care how much evidence is presented, his mind is locked on that idea. He reminds me of a geologist I met who worked for a Texas oil company using his knowledge (of layers in the Earth of oil formed over millions of years) five days a week, but went home to be a six day Creationist on the weekends.
If you go read books like The Language of God by Christian Evangelical Francis Collins or the biology text books by the Catholic, Kenneth Miller, you will find believers who explain the futility of positions like those held by Ken Ham against the facts on (and in) the ground. Again, Ken Ham presents no evidence, he simply states that he does not want it to be true. He will convince no one who does not already wear those mental blinders.
Now, why do you believe what you believe?
Got evidence?
//Now, why do you believe what you believe?
Got evidence?//
Because it’s founded upon solid evidence. I just can’t give it because the one requesting it isn’t playing fair. 😉
I am not playing, I am just asking you to tell me why you believe what you believe. This is your chance to present evidence that would support what you believe. If you don’t do that, you should not be surprised that people take it as indication that you have none.
Got evidence?
////Now, why do you believe what you believe? Got evidence?// Because it’s founded upon solid evidence. I just can’t give it because the one requesting it isn’t playing fair. 😉 //
How the game is played doesn’t change the evidence. Put it out there… Let it see the light of day.
To not do so, is a cop out and suggests you yourself might be doubting the evidence.
So, Paul… let’s have it! Let’s see/hear/experience the evidence.
How many times have you read the Bible from cover to cover?
FYI http://wvxu.org/post/developers-believe-noah-s-ark-will-happen
Paul,
When one says “I believe …” he usually has a complex of experiences that come to bear on that, and upon which he has built a logical framework. We are not just logical beings, though. We are a mess of emotions as well, and, more often than not, our logic is built around explaining and defending and protecting something deep inside us–essentially rationalizations. The foundation of the logic is not logic at all, but feelings and perceptions. That has been my experience, anyway. Maybe there are people for whom that is not the case–“Star Trek Mr. Spock,” you know! That is to say, that I suspect highly logical atheists and Pentecostal Christians probably fit this description to, perhaps, varying degrees. At the base of everything are assumptions, axioms, definitions we don’t prove. They just are our starting point, and often, they are so deep that we don’t even recognize what they are. We have to dig deep to find them. They may be somewhat different for each of us, and those differences at the base can lead to big differences in the results of which we are conscious and others see. They are not subject to proof. All logic systems have to begin with them, though.
As long as we do not have to live together or communicate with one another, we are free not to examine them and to just accept them as they are. When we want to communicate, have to find ways to live together, or need to accomplish something in particular or predict things accurately, etc., however, it becomes necessary to examine ourselves for the foundations of our beliefs and adjust them as necessary to successfully accomplish any of these things.
I think you are being asked to dig deep to find out why you trust the Bible, and why you trust the God you understand it to present and why you trust your own current understanding of the Bible and all of history and Biblical scholarship on which you rely so much that you can make such damning pronouncements on other people as I’ve seen in some of your earlier comments in the heat of battle. I understand that you think that you are loving them by warning them as God tells you to do, but I must ask you how you would feel and respond if others stated similar opinions about your fate to you. Would that frighten you or make you angry or some combination of all that leading to very defensive responses and posturing rather than honest sharing that has some hope of the results you seek?
I know that my understanding of the Bible is a constantly changing thing. That means to me that it has never been perfect. It has just been the best I could do at the time. Some of the changes in my understanding of it have been large enough that I realize how tenuous any understanding I think I may have is. I suspect that nearly everyone who digs into it discovers the same thing for himself. Even over the ages of its existence, the greatest minds keep finding different understandings of it. There are lots of controversies surrounding it among the greatest minds, too. Even if one assumes that God said it, so it’s perfect, I know that I’m not and, the best I can tell, it says none of us is, so my understanding of it has to be couched in utmost humility.
Two things I see in it repeatedly, so I think they may be pretty important are to love one another and not to judge one another. If there is a god as the Bible proclaims, that god has reserved judgment of each of us for “him”self and explicitly not turned it over to us.
What I would like to see from you, if you want to try to be effective, is not verifiable evidence that will lead me to a logical conclusion that you are right and I am wrong and need to change, but a deep examination of the foundation of your faith beneath the logical framework you’ve built. That’s where it’s at for you, really, I would venture to guess. I don’t care about all the facts that you have that we can all interpret in different ways and on which can still come up with opposite conclusions. I just want to see an honest assessment of who you are beneath all the pronouncements of truth you give. What is your testimony? What is your underlying story? They’re yours, not ours. We cannot refute them. We might question whether you’ve gotten down to the real roots or are still messing around with secondary conclusions and interpretations that can be disputable. When you get to the bottom, I suspect that we’ll find that they’re likely something we all can share. Deep inside each of us is probably something similar to which we can relate. Then, there is a chance we’ll all find common ground which some of us may call god and others just something special that drives us. 1/15/14, 20:52 CST
Nicely put, Bob. I agree.
Bob, if someone warned me of impending judgment and eternal punishment, I would at least feel obligated to investigate. What I hope I would not do is ridicule, mock, scorn, name call, and say a myriad of other disrespectful things to the person who told me.
If anything here has proven that evolution is not true, it’s the way other treat their fellow man out here. That theory hasn’t made them more civil by any means.
I’ve been doing this a long, long time and have pretty tough skin. But such rudeness does get in the way of respectful, profitable dialog.
Paul,
To this:
“I’ve been doing this a long, long time and have pretty tough skin. But such rudeness does get in the way of respectful, profitable dialog.”
I say, “Bingo! We’re on the same page.”
To this:
“If anything here has proven that evolution is not true, it’s the way other treat their fellow man out here. That theory hasn’t made them more civil by any means.”
I respond, “Why is this in the third person?”
And, to this:
“Bob, if someone warned me of impending judgment and eternal punishment, I would at least feel obligated to investigate. What I hope I would not do is ridicule, mock, scorn, name call, and say a myriad of other disrespectful things to the person who told me.”
I respond, “Are you sure that would be your response, especially if you felt you had no reason to believe him?” Dig deep and be honest. It’s important for your witness. You may discover something.
1/15/14, 21:21 CST
//I respond, “Are you sure that would be your response, especially if you felt you had no reason to believe him?” Dig deep and be honest. It’s important for your witness. You may discover something.//
The belief isn’t derived from the newsboy, it’s derived from the paper in his hand and the words contained therein. The newsboy shouts, “A storm is coming! Flee for your lives! and he holds out the paper as proof.” No one is forced to take it, but those that do find the paper correct and the storm inevitable. They are spared and the rest lost. None of that tragedy rests on the newsboy.
I am just a herald of bad and good news. The bad news is that unregenerate men are under God’s judgment right now (John 3:36). The good news is that there is a way out (John 3:16). It’s their choice to take the message and do something with it.
FYI I see someone down on this thread mentioned “Evolution vs. God”, and I recommend watching it… for a laugh, and then watching the rebuttal. Hemant Mehta has the links @ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/08/15/a-rebuttal-video-to-ray-comforts-evolution-vs-god/ — enjoy. Ray Comfort, and Creationists like him, always distort reality to try and defeat science. It would be better if they could actually be honest, but honesty results in atheism and believing in evolution. =)
//FYI I see someone down on this thread mentioned “Evolution vs. God”, and I recommend watching it…//
Oh, yes, PLEASE watch it! And notice that Ray doesn’t do any twisting or trick questioning. Just asking evolutionists some questions.
As for the rebuttal, I haven’t seen it, but I will go out on a limb and imagine it to be an attack on Ray Comfort’s person. That’s the typical response when one can’t debate the facts.
The rebuttals I have seen simply call for Ray to “allow us to see the unedited version” because they simply can’t believe the evolutionists were without answer, when in actuality that’s exactly what happened. I’m glad my faith isn’t in evolution. It’s a lie and it hasn’t done anything to help the human race.
Oh, yes, PLEASE watch it! And notice that Ray doesn’t do any twisting or trick questioning. Just asking evolutionists some questions.
As for the rebuttal, I haven’t seen it, but I will go out on a limb and imagine it to be an attack on Ray Comfort’s person.
Wasn’t going to post to this again, but no. The “trick” Mr. Banana plays is asking absurd questions, not understanding the answers, then editing the film footage he does end up with so that it looks like they gave him stupid ones, or didn’t have any. His film is drek, for the same reason that an article on some scientific discovery, which leaps to unbelievable conclusions, but then doesn’t reference the data, the study, or give any way to look up what the person they interviewed actually did say, or mean, is drek. You whine about atheists having “favorite passages” they harp on all the time, well, Comfort does the same thing with interviews, picking out only the things that make people look bad, even if it means patching together different sections of unrelated film, or clipping out the answer given, and only showing the scientist staring at him with a look of, “What the frak did this guy just ask me, and how can he be so dense.” Personally, if I was someone worth his time to put in the film, I would have my own bloody camera there, and make it real clear that there was no way in hell that he would use his footage, unless mine got released as well. A few tried a similar tack, asking for originals of their own interviews, gullibly believing he would honor any such agreement.
And, no, the “rebuttal” is not an attack on him (I don’t think, but then.. since we are in imagination land, where actually viewing it isn’t necessary, I am going to simply imagine it isn’t), but, if its anything at all like every single rebuttal put out by the people he conned into talking to him, it explains what they did say, what he distorted, how he lied to them, and what they did mean, instead of what dear Ray made it sound like they meant. He is a bloody con artist. But, then, there has never been a lack of people willing to pay premium tickets for snake oil, or fake displays, which support their own beliefs, nor are any of those people, oddly enough, ever “have time” to bother checking to see if the Fiji Mermaid is a bloody fake.
Nice attack on Ray Comfort. It’s completely baseless, of course. But what else do you have when such a damaging video is released freely to the public?
If what Ray did was so bad and untrue, where are the outcries from the participants? Are they all too dumb to seek justice from his supposed injustice? Where are they? If it was such a defamation of character as you portray, there may even be room for a lawsuit. And yet, silence. Interesting.
Ray Comfort is a man of character. He has not edited the movie to suit his goals. You are a liar and no nothing, and you can’t prove a single thing you’ve said about him.
As for the “rebuttal,” it’s an absolute attack on Comfort (I did watch it yesterday). The silly woman is clueless and offers no real solid rebuttal at all. All she does is rant and mock Comfort, God, and Christians. It’s pitiful to watch, but comforting at the same time, knowing that, as a representative of atheism, there is no real defense.
Bang! Game over.
I have written a blog post about Ray’s video here. It includes this video showing Ray’s dishonesty:
Yep, the standard bait and switch, which, apparently, somehow isn’t baring false witness… Of course, the other one, used in “debates”, which is why no one in their right mind debates these people any more (which begs the question of how some people missed the damn memo on that), is – through everything, including the kitchen sink at them, in 10 minutes of gibberish, then complain that they didn’t fully answer all of their questions, no matter how absurd they where, therefor – they don’t have any real answers.
I propose a challenge. In previous threads you’ve been asked for Evidence upon which you respond “How many times, or have you ever read the bible cover to cover?”
I’ll start: I’ve never read the bible completely. The parts I have read really made me question it’s authenticity (God created the earth in 6 days, resting on the 7th.)
That right there makes it suspect, so as you can tell.. I didn’t get far. and I had no interest in fables.
My atheism was founded on evidence. Repeatable, testable, demonstrable evidence. I’ve been ‘saved’ about 8 times in my early adult life, because I really wanted to know god better. And yet nothing ever changed for me. Evidence.
Our solar system is about 5 billion years old. Evidence.
Plate tectonics causes the ocean floors to rise up to create mountaintops with marine fossils near their peaks. Evidence.
A few years ago a young girl was buried alive in some psycho’s back yard. She was discovered in a shallow grave, clutching her teddy bear while her family prayed in futility for her safe return. Evidence.
When I look around, I see evidence everywhere of god’s non-existence.
My evidence is repeatable, testable, and will survive the scrutiny of my peers.
So.. no.. I have not read the bible in it’s entirety. I don’t need to. It’s not a prerequisite for understand the world around us. We have science for that, which produces evidence.
You say you believe the bible because you know it to be true because it says so in the bible. I am certain you have heard the phrase ‘Circular logic’.
I challenge you to step outside the pages of the bible and prove it’s truth from the outside in.
So that is my list of evidence for my non-belief. It adheres to the scientific definition of evidence.
Now.. Adhering to the definition of evidence, it’s your turn.
There is verifiable evidence to support each and every claim I make. It has all been accepted within the scientific community with reams of documents and research, . It is fact, and to state otherwise is cognitive dissonance.
If we can agree on the definition of evidence, then it’s your turn. No backing out or stonewalling by saying things like “I would tell you but you won’t play fair.”
Paul, we really do want evidence, not so much to jump on it and say “See? You’re wrong!” but to ponder over it and dig deeper into it to see if it is in fact, truth.
If you do have evidence and can prove it… that is something we really would like to understand further.
It’s not a taunt.
Think you replied to the wrong post/person there Ray. =)
//I’ll start: I’ve never read the bible completely. The parts I have read really made me question it’s authenticity (God created the earth in 6 days, resting on the 7th.)
That right there makes it suspect, so as you can tell.. I didn’t get far. and I had no interest in fables.//
What if I took the same route with regard to evolution (i.e. that I couldn’t read much about it or examine its claims because I concluded after a short time that it’s all hooey). To add to it, imagine that you’d studied evolution extensively for over 25 years. Would you consider me a good candidate for a debate on that subject? Would you even take your time trying to convince me of something that I obviously have no knowledge of (other than that I had read some really good websites that said it was bad and had “proof”)?
…hard to keep track nowadays!
Paul, I answered your questions.
Now, it’s you’re turn but instead, we see yet more questions.
You don’t get to throw endless hypotheticals and “What ifs” around this discussion to continually evade actually giving us evidence. We could go round and round forever doing that.
Just one shred that god exists. Just one! You seem so thoroughly convinced that he does exist that it should be no trouble at all to provide evidence…..
…yet you refuse, always evading with more questions, deflections and sometimes even name calling.
In response to your questions of “Have you read the bible?” There can be only 2 responses from us:
1. Yes
2. No
..to which there can only be one christian-based response to each outlined here:
1. Yes: “Then you didn’t understand it. You;’ll need to read it again”
2. No: “Then how can I debate someone who has never read the bible?”
…at which point in this discussion, I am done.. I am done with the black vortex of doom called Circular logic presented by the christians.
I wish you well in your teachings as you spread this thing called christianity and mislead vulnerable people who can’t see past their own troubles to know that what they are being fed is a fantasy full of rainbows and unicorns.
I leave you with 3 words:
Question Everything.
Please.
Strange logic, Ray. First of all, my original question about reading the Bible wasn’t even directed at you.
Second, it is absurd to debate the veracity of something when the two parties debating are not on equal footing. How can there be a debate when one party is seriously lacking the knowledge to comprehend the topic simply because he hasn’t read it? Don’t put that back on me! I’ve read the Bible nearly every day for over 25 years. I’m ready as one can be to debate the issues surrounding it. But I won’t be pulled into a debate with someone who has only studied what others have said negatively about the Bible. That won’t cut it.
Go read the Bible through, get some understanding of how it was written, rules for interpretation, evidences for its historicity, etc., and then we’ll talk.
If you want to be done, then be done. But let’s be clear. It’s not my fault simply because I won’t submit to your demands carte blanche.
So… no evidence then… Not even if there’s a possibility that I could be saved… converted back into a christian…
Are the people you witness to on equal footing?
I just asked for one shred.. maybe that’s a deeply-veiled cry for help? Do you know? Have you judged us all unworthy of this knowledge?
Just one shred….
//So… no evidence then… Not even if there’s a possibility that I could be saved… converted back into a christian…
Are the people you witness to on equal footing?//
No, they are not. But they are not already caustic towards that which the don’t understand. In other words, their inquiries are usually sincere, and not done for the purpose of winning a debate or mocking.
Until you take your last breath, Ray, there is hope for you to get truly saved. You know enough about it to understand what I’m talking about.
//I just asked for one shred.. maybe that’s a deeply-veiled cry for help? Do you know? Have you judged us all unworthy of this knowledge?
Just one shred….//
Ok, here is a small shred that is articulated very well, IMO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDAw-uIe3KI
If you are really seeking answers then 11 minutes will be worth your time.
I watched the video Paul and there is an interesting distinction that Ravi makes.
He states that 99.4% of the bible has been ‘corroborated’ and validated as true.
The problem here is that corroboration requires a human to vouch for the bible’s content.
Were those scholars biased?
Corroboration is not evidence. It requires yet another leap of faith for me to believe the scholars.
It is not evidence.
//I watched the video Paul and there is an interesting distinction that Ravi makes.
He states that 99.4% of the bible has been ‘corroborated’ and validated as true.
The problem here is that corroboration requires a human to vouch for the bible’s content.
Were those scholars biased?
Corroboration is not evidence. It requires yet another leap of faith for me to believe the scholars.
It is not evidence.//
Can’t the same be said of any topic (like evolution, for instance)? And keep in mind that Ravi didn’t mention (due to the lack of time in that setting, no doubt) what the scholars corroborated on to agree near 100%. But no doubt they were in agreement based on evidence they researched, and they were obviously qualified to research their topic.
Name me one thing that is debated on this earth where the opposite parties don’t bring a measure of bias into the ring? It’s impossible when you’re dealing with humans.
And what about the other things Ravi and Michael said like historical claims being supported by archaeology and detailed prophecies being fulfilled hundreds of years later. Hard to refute those facts. Usually the way to do it is to cast doubt on the dates of the writings and the authors, regardless of how little accepted or plausible it is. ANY “answer” is grabbed as “proof” that the Bible is wrong. I don’t have a lot of patience for that stuff.
And, he write this, with, apparently, absolutely no sense of the immense irony involved, while trying to claim that creationism, among other things, are absolutely true, even as he admits to not *understanding*, never mind taking the time to do so, the thing that refutes it. Oh, and.. anyone else notice the unintentional “no true Scotsman” fallacy that “No true Christians have ever understood Evolution”? lol
And now, a knock-knock joke!
Knock knock!
Who’s there?
Jesus! Let me in!
Why should I?
Because of what I’ll do to you if you don’t let me in!
Cute! Now, let’s look at the real “knock knock” truth.
Revelation 3:20 “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.”
Jesus “knocks” at the door of every heart and desires to be Lord of that heart. Those that open to him know the life changing power of the Gospel. (Which power is evidence, by the way, of his existence.)
You, Ray, about bound in your sins. Jesus can set you free when nothing else really can. Why would you reject such love as that?
Having been there, Paul, and having been ‘saved’ myself years ago, I can tell you with stupifying certainty… that nothing changed.
//Having been there, Paul, and having been ‘saved’ myself years ago, I can tell you with stupifying certainty… that nothing changed.//
Great! I love that there is no confusion for you. It’s very revealing. No offense, Ray, but if nothing changed you weren’t really saved and are still lost. You don’t have to stay that way, however. Jesus still knocks.
It is impossible for the King of the Universe to enter the heart of a man and there be no change. Impossible. He changed me back in 1986 and I’ve never been the same. The things I once desired, which usually surrounded my own personal benefit, I no longer crave. Jesus gave me inward peace and a reason for living. He’ll do the same for all who come to him in repentance and faith.
I look forward to your comments in my last dissertation 🙂 …and if you are open to my challenge!
I must’ve done something wrong then.. Maybe I had to stand on one foot? Do the hokey-pokey?
Oh… wait… I had my fingers crossed… dang!
*are bound…
I was serious about Paul, and Christians like him being not too much different than criminals.
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/does-belief-in-god-encourage-criminal-behavior/
“…if nothing changed you weren’t really saved and are still lost.”
This always really pisses me off. The deluded always assume that non-believers MUST not understand the position of faith, and if they were once believers, they couldn’t have been TRUE believers.
For your information, there are plenty of people, myself included, who were true believers, who embraced belief, who pursued understanding with every expectation that more study, more faith, and more prayer would eventually result in more certainty – only to discover that if you actually allow your brain to work, you eventually come to the conclusion that it’s all lies.
I hope you get there, Paul, and I hope that if you do, that you have the courage to recognize where you are.
Paul said:
Paul, I have read the scriptures, some books more than others and have studied how we come to have copies and translations of them. Your question takes the form of classic rhetorical tricks used to avoid the substance of the issue by turning the tide to some personal issues (tricks so favored by Ray Comfort). I am not going to let you slide in an ad hom false equivalence between the number of times something is read by a reader and the justification for asking for backing evidence by said reader. Again, I am not trying to present belief to you, so I have no obligation for backing, whereas you are preaching beliefs about things you claim are true. I want to know why you believe what you believe. Reading back over your comments to others, here, I get the impression that you are like Ken Ham who states openly that he simply chooses to believe what is in the Bible because it is in the Bible, with no more evidence required, and in the face of any evidence to the contrary. Is that also your position, or have you in fact,
Got evidence?
This is exactly the rhetorical trick I was expecting. If, after reading a small amount about Evolution, you decided that it was “hooey” then you are welcome to your opinion and to state your opinion. However, if you want others to put confidence in your opinion you are going to have to back it up, which might be difficult for you if you have not given the subject enough study. You could still prevail, if you found a significant contradiction in the small part that you had studied, and in any case you would be justified in asking about that.
Always remember that there is a difference between knowing what is in scripture and knowing if what is in scripture is actually true. I suspect that if you really have been reading it for over 25 years you can recall parts (or all) of it much better than I can. I want to know what you think is actually true and why, and especially if you’ve,
Got evidence?
//You could still prevail, if you found a significant contradiction in the small part that you had studied, and in any case you would be justified in asking about that.//
This is faulty logic, because even if you had found an “error” in part, it’s not justification to assume that the whole is in error. That is why it’s necessary to understand the whole subject before trying to defend or refute it, and that is also why it’s unfair to your opponent when all you really have are the worn out arguments researched by OTHER people.
Take the multitude of so-called “contradictions” in the Bible. I’ve never been given one yet from an atheist in 19 years that was legitimate (and there ARE some problem texts in the Bible). For example, someone here recently tried to show such a contradiction in Exodus where God said “no graven images” (ch. 20) and then allowed the creation of cherubims (Ex. 25, I believe). Rebuffing that “contradiction” was extremely easy because of my knowledge of the Bible. But the strange thing is that the person who sent it STILL believes that’s a contradiction, and I get laughed at as remaining in “ignorance,” when THEY don’t even know what they are talking about! They are absolutely convinced they are right because they found the “contradiction” on a skeptic’s website, and they trust that website because it was created by a skeptic. There is no reasoning with such people.
These are the kinds of dilemmas one finds himself in when the understanding of the subject is one-sided.
So, go ahead and present your evidence. What do you believe, and why do you believe it?
Got evidence?
If I am reading a 100 page mathematical proof and I find an error in one line then the proof is wrong. It might be fixable but as it stands it is wrong.
That’s because the entire 100 pages is linked to one mathematical problem. Questioning the Creation story in Genesis has no impact on the myriad of prophecies predicted and fulfilled. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
I think Michael has a good point. When someone is reading along in scripture and comes to things that are not true, the natural question that arises is, what parts are true? Internal claims of truth are then not useful, because those are still in the context of what must be picked as true, among the false. Without external objective evidence, you are stuck in a theology of personal preference.
Got evidence?
//I think Michael has a good point. When someone is reading along in scripture and comes to things that are not true, the natural question that arises is, what parts are true? Internal claims of truth are then not useful, because those are still in the context of what must be picked as true, among the false. Without external objective evidence, you are stuck in a theology of personal preference.//
You’re exactly right. But who decides something is not true? The ground (as in archaeology) or miracles (as in fulfilled prophecy) or the agreement of scholars ancient and present, or the firm belief that it’s not true no matter what (atheists)?
Well, that is the good question of epistemology. Part of why is it a good question is that “not true” is something we have better access to than “true.” Most people in ancient times thought that the Earth was a flat disk with a moving firmament above that held fixed “lights.” But the shadow of the Earth as it crosses the Moon (just one of many examples) shows that can’t be true. Again, and again, objective evidence show that guesses our ancestors made and wrote into their scriptures around the word are “not true.”
The word “miracle” started off meaning simply a surprising event. Some still use it that way, but it too often carries an assumption of supernatural action. However, even if an event is so surprising as to have no credible explanation, than does not justify extrapolation to the supernatural. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Miracles
I am sure there are atheists who are closed minded and reject all supernatural claims without a thought. However, most that I know are simply waiting for objective evidence to back up belief.
Got evidence?
I’ve been thinking on this issue more and more, arriving at another interesting question.
Disregarding the bible completely… Is there any evidence that god exists?
I ask this because of people that have never been exposed to the bible or christianity. What happens to them? Do they get a pass? And.. if they are somehow introduced to the bible are they then bound by its’ contents?
Isn’t the simple answer to do away with the bible completely if we all get a pass anyway?
I know that’s over-simplifying things a bit, (Or a lot for some on here) but it does beg the question…
//Disregarding the bible completely… Is there any evidence that god exists?//
Absolutely! Psalm 19:1-4
“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge.
There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.”
The natural world, with its clear design and complexity, is proof.
Who originally wrote that, and when? How do we come to have that verse in translation, today, and what happened to it on the way? Did the author understand the working of the Natural World enough to know the difference between that which seems to be from supernatural causes v. the observation of natural processes and the statistics of coincidence?
But most of all, why do you believe that it is true?
Got evidence?
//Who originally wrote that, and when? How do we come to have that verse in translation, today, and what happened to it on the way? Did the author understand the working of the Natural World enough to know the difference between that which seems to be from supernatural causes v. the observation of natural processes and the statistics of coincidence?//
David wrote it through the inspiration of God around 1,000 B.C. We got it through the meticulous and arduous copying process by the ancient Hebrews. They were so careful so as not to produce error, and those manuscripts are accurate. If David was guided by the hand and providence of God, then does that question really need an answer? It’s like asking, “Did understand the working of the Natural World enough to know the difference between that which seems to be from supernatural causes v. the observation of natural processes and the statistics of coincidence?” Um, yes.
Although, I have to admit I chuckled at the comment about “the statistics of coincidence.” That may work for some things, but I can assure you that you need BILLIONS of them for a natural formation of the universe, earth and humanity. “It could be a coincidence” isn’t a very scientific answer.
//But most of all, why do you believe that it is true?//
Until I find proof to believe otherwise, why wouldn’t I?
Thought of you…
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/01/27/message-decoded-again-3000-year-old-text-may-prove-biblical-tale-king-solomon/
Evidence! The ground (i.e. scientific observation) has always supported the Bible. Always. 🙂
An interesting piece…
But.. if this piece is ‘over 3000 years old’ doesn’t that predate the bible by about… 500 years? And couldn’t the story persist, ending up in the bible?
One other curious observation: That broken piece of pottery looks like it was fired in the kiln…. last week.
If you’ve ever seen ancient pieces of pottery excavated from archaeological digs, the first thing you’d notice is.. not one sharp edge to be found, nor would pieces fit together perfectly as in the photo. Nor would the inscriptions be as easily readable as they are in the photo.
So… my amateur/professional opinion on the pottery is.. it’s looks like a fake. I could very well be wrong and the door is always open to my wrong-ness, but… I think it’s a fake.
//An interesting piece…
But.. if this piece is ‘over 3000 years old’ doesn’t that predate the bible by about… 500 years? And couldn’t the story persist, ending up in the bible?//
No, if it’s 3k years old it’s right around the time of King David. Solomon was his son.
//One other curious observation: That broken piece of pottery looks like it was fired in the kiln…. last week.//
Yep. But hard to make a judgment from a photo.
//So… my amateur/professional opinion on the pottery is.. it’s looks like a fake. I could very well be wrong and the door is always open to my wrong-ness, but… I think it’s a fake.//
I suppose you have a right to that opinion, but I will have to take the report of the expert in the article over your opinion, until your opinion is proven fact. Right?
By the way, in following up my last post mentioning the so-called contradiction in Exodus, do you know the only way to solve the contradiction? By READING!
So if you haven’t read the Bible enough how can you even argue with someone who has?
Back in 1996 I organized a creation/evolution debate between Dr. Duane Gish Ph D (of ICR) and Dr. Philip Hewitt, Ph D (paleontology/S.U.N.Y. Brockport, NY). The dates were set. It was going to be held in Dr. Hewitt’s home field at the university. Hundreds of people were planning to attend (including Dr. Hewitt’s own biology class, as he required). But then TWO WEEKS before the debate was to take place Dr. Hewitt mysteriously canceled. That created a big problem.
After some time, one of Dr. Hewitt’s former students (a science grad) offered to stand in Hewitt’s place and debate Dr. Gish. So I ran it by Dr. Gish. He emphatically said, “No!” “Why?” I thought. I’m thinking that just having people hear Dr. Gish’s arguments would be worth it all. Who cares who the opponent is? He did. He said, “Paul, if I debate that man who is not a Ph D, it’s a no-win situation for me. Even if I win I will be called out for debating someone with a lesser education than me.” He wouldn’t do it. He said he’d give a lecture and leave it at that.
Dr. Hewitt finally relented and agreed to a “discussion,” which turned into a debate anyway (which Dr. Gish won easily).
I learned something from that. There is no benefit in debating someone who has very little understanding of the topic at hand, relatively speaking. Dr. Gish was a Ph D and he knew it wouldn’t look good to debate someone who wasn’t also a Ph D. That was wisdom.
Paul, would that be the Dr. Gish of the famous “Gish Gallop“? But, this is not a debate with rules and declared winners, it is simply a place where you can state what you believe and why you believe it, and for those reading to decide if you’ve,
Got evidence?
Scientific Ignorance:
The belief held by a person who has never studied astronomy, cosmology, physics, chemistry or geology, and who has never read any of the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers describing the evidence for (1) the Big-Bang theory, (2) The theory of abiogenesis and (3) the theory of evolution, and who doesn’t even know that these are 3 separate theories and that none of them has anything to do with atheism, considers himself qualified to to evaluate these 3 fields of science and declare them false.
//Scientific Ignorance:
The belief held by a person who has never studied astronomy, cosmology, physics, chemistry or geology, and who has never read any of the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers describing the evidence for (1) the Big-Bang theory, (2) The theory of abiogenesis and (3) the theory of evolution, and who doesn’t even know that these are 3 separate theories and that none of them has anything to do with atheism, considers himself qualified to to evaluate these 3 fields of science and declare them false.//
Ray, couldn’t I substitute “Biblical Ignorance” or “Theological Ignorance” for your title and list the same things about knowing the Bible, textual criticism, ancient languages as they relate to the Scriptures, dispensational theology, etc., etc., etc. and come to the same conclusion about atheists declaring the Bible false?
In the 19+ years I have debated atheists I have always been amazed at their level of Bible knowledge. They know more Bible than a theology professor. (I’m being sarcastic.) And yet, when I press them about how much of the Bible they have read, I’m met with “That doesn’t matter” or “I know the material” things of that nature. And then I get called out, as has happened here, for pressing a non-important issue. The bottom line is that most atheists have no clue about what the Bible really says or does not say. They couldn’t really argue biblical things if their life depended on it.
Why is it important for someone to learn all the things you mentioned above (some of which I personally have studied, by the way) before being considered qualified to discuss the validity of evolution, but not necessary to discuss issues of theology?
In my own words, disregarding the bible, your god doesn’t exist. The ONLY place your god exists is in the bible, which is nothing more than a historical recording by men, uninspired by anything but their own motives.
If you took away the bible and any notion of it’s history, god ceases to exist. And because mankind is by nature, curious to explain the world around him, he would invent another god.
Humans keep on reinventing religions just as humans reinvent history. Think about how much “history” is just a fluid social narrative. Religion is more viscous than history, but still presents an evolving social narrative even down to specific geographies supporting different, and competing, religious narrations, that mold and meld belief systems during different periods.
At the end of the day, Paul recommends that others ignore all that and believe in “his” one, surefire, thing.
So it’s either “Paul’s way,” or the confusion of the “other way.” Would you agree or disagree, Paul? The “other way” is just too uncertain?
//In my own words, disregarding the bible, your god doesn’t exist. The ONLY place your god exists is in the bible, which is nothing more than a historical recording by men, uninspired by anything but their own motives.//
Well, that’s partially true. But the rest is your opinion and not based on facts at all.
It is true that if the Bible is disregarded my God (Jehovah) would not be known to humanity. (He may still exist, but no humans would know about it.) But I’m not arguing in this particular case for Jehovah God. I’m simply arguing that “God” is the logical conclusion from the evidence found in the natural world (order, design and complexity). I say “God” is a better answer than time, chance, accidents and mutations.
Nature proves there is a Creator. The Bible proves who he is.
//If you took away the bible and any notion of it’s history, god ceases to exist. And because mankind is by nature, curious to explain the world around him, he would invent another god.//
That is not true. Nearly every tribal group that has ever lived has worshipped some “god.” It might be the Sun, moon, stars, mountains, earth, fire, wind, etc., etc., but it was an idol to them and they considered it a “god.” That’s natural. That’s normal, which you alluded to. But what is certain is that atheism is not natural or normal. It’s not “original” to humanity. It also is a learned belief.
Now, there, is something we can agree about. As humans developed, generation by generation over millions of years, the brains of our ancestors grew and became more complex. At a point they were able to imagine supernatural deities as the causes behind the world they saw around them. The mythological is the ‘natural’ cultural binding of human beings. However, as our understanding of the natural processes around us began to replace mythology our more recent ancestors were able to rise above our superstitious tendencies and base our knowledge on evidence from scientific observation.
Through reason and observation we see that there is no justification for belief in the supernatural. The “argument from design” failed long ago. A ‘gap’ in understanding of natural processes is not justification for pretending to know that deities exist. Your admission that you don’t know how the world around you works is not going to move us to abandon research to find out, and join you in worshiping a deity from bronze age mythology. Yes, it is not normal for humans to step out of their superstitions, it takes mental work, as does doing Calculus.
There is always a certain amusement at the idea that the way to prove the Bible, and its god is to **only** study various versions of the Bible, and ignore everything else. Science, while it has sub-fields, which tend to be specific, often ends up borrowing things from other parts, like fluid dynamics, to explain something in biology, such that to claim that Evolution, or any other sub-field is wrong, you are forced to call into question ****every other field****. Now.. If the Paulites of the world where at all honest, they would be examining “all” religions, and belief systems, in an attempt to explain their own. They don’t. If they did… well, a “basic” google search, just one his own supposed “true god”, and a few others mentioned in the Bible, like say, “yahweh chemosh baal el”, gives you 66,900 results, in the vein of pages like this one: http://www.usbible.com/Creation/AlienGods.htm
Which, well.. kind of show that there where a bloody lot of gods around, and that, in some case, they where not even sure which one they where following. For example, Ba’al is often depicted, especially in modern views, as a version of the devil, in other cases, it seems they thought Yahweh and Ba’al where the same god (This argument is even the “top” search, and, despite the idiocy of it, is from a Jehovah Witness site), and in still others, thought both of them, along with Chemosh, where the “sons” of the god El, or possibly Dagon, who might have, or might not have, been the same gods.
But, yeah, if you ignore **everything** other than the silly passages in one holy book, including what the Jewish people say on the subject of its older parts, and spend all your time just fiddling with the wording, in an attempt to find the “pure form” of it.. you are bound to miss the silliness of claiming that one of them was absolutely real, while the rest of them where just made up. Or, the even more absurd idea, which some modern wishy washy types like to propose, that they are all the same being, and all the wars between the various people, who where all being told to kill their neighbors, for using, apparently, the wrong name, where just.. confused somehow.
But seriously.. Trying to prove the Bible by studying the Bible, and ignoring everything else known about the time, and its gods, and people, is right up there with trying to analyze the works of Tolkien, while denying that he stole everything, including the languages in them, from Northern European mythology.
Its, frankly, the inability of them to even bloody pin down which “god” they are talking about, until after the non-existent “exile”, which make the idea that the Bible is “reliable” in this context, laughable.
//Now, there, is something we can agree about. As humans developed, generation by generation over millions of years, the brains of our ancestors grew and became more complex. At a point they were able to imagine supernatural deities as the causes behind the world they saw around them. The mythological is the ‘natural’ cultural binding of human beings. However, as our understanding of the natural processes around us began to replace mythology our more recent ancestors were able to rise above our superstitious tendencies and base our knowledge on evidence from scientific observation.//
That entire paragraph is opinion. All of it. It has nothing to do with science or fact.
//Through reason and observation we see that there is no justification for belief in the supernatural. The “argument from design” failed long ago. A ‘gap’ in understanding of natural processes is not justification for pretending to know that deities exist. Your admission that you don’t know how the world around you works is not going to move us to abandon research to find out, and join you in worshiping a deity from bronze age mythology. Yes, it is not normal for humans to step out of their superstitions, it takes mental work, as does doing Calculus.//
You seem to be daydreaming. LOL.
Again, all your opinion, along with some false claims. In all my reading I’ve never read anyone propose the “God of the Gaps.” They may exist, but I’ve only ever heard that argument by atheists who dump it upon creationists as if we really believe that argument. We don’t. We also aren’t asking anyone to abandon real scientific research. That problems come from research that has a bias towards a particular worldview and seeks only to prove it. That’s not following the evidence where it leads. That’s forcing it to say something it doesn’t.
Our belief in a Creator is grounded in fact and by examining the same evidence you have. And, no, as much as you, or Stephen Hawking, or whoever wishes it was true, the argument for design has not failed. I know you probably wish it has since it’s a big problem, but saying it’s a non-issue, when it still is and always will be, is not being honest with yourself.
// Our belief in a Creator is grounded in fact and by examining the same evidence you have. And, no, as much as you, or Stephen Hawking, or whoever wishes it was true, //
This is an interesting statement.
A realist or scientist can look at a particular species of bird, let’s say the Pink Flamingo, and while the scientist can pour over data, establish genetic lines, validate branches from the central species, discover DNA that is in common with other bird species to determine ancestral relations.
All these facts can be related to where and how the Pink flamingo came into being via evolution, or more accurately, natural selection (Which CAN be observed and repeated) . And then a Christian comes along and says “God did it” and you consider your findings on as equal a footing as the scientist?
You would consider your findings as much ‘fact’ as the scientist?
Seriously? Are Christians THAT lazy in their thought process by summarily declaring “God did it” without bothering to look at the scientific data?
You got it Ray! Christians like Paul are allergic to work.
>
//A realist or scientist can look at a particular species of bird, let’s say the Pink Flamingo, and while the scientist can pour over data, establish genetic lines, validate branches from the central species, discover DNA that is in common with other bird species to determine ancestral relations.
All these facts can be related to where and how the Pink flamingo came into being via evolution, or more accurately, natural selection (Which CAN be observed and repeated) . And then a Christian comes along and says “God did it” and you consider your findings on as equal a footing as the scientist?//
Ok, let’s break it down. (And, by the way, I consider myself quite the realist. The term is not synonymous with “scientist.”)
Creation scientists pour over the same data and come to the same conclusions, with the exception of saying evolution was the cause. You were right on until you said “via evolution.” I’ve never met a single Christian who denies natural selection. It’s only you atheists that say we don’t believe it. The issue we have is attaching it to evolution. That’s wrong and not scientific. Small changes over time (i.e. feather color, beak size, etc.) happen, and NO ONE disputes that. What Creationists dispute is the faith-based extrapolation of those changes into some other type of animal. What science has shown by observation is the link of pink flamingos, with all their minor variations, with other BIRDS. What you cannot observe or prove scientifically is that the pink flamingoes were related to a non-bird species in any way. Pink flamingoes may very in certain traits, but they have always and only been birds. That is face supports a creation model better than an evolution model.
//You would consider your findings as much ‘fact’ as the scientist?
Seriously? Are Christians THAT lazy in their thought process by summarily declaring “God did it” without bothering to look at the scientific data?//
Not at all. You atheists are the only ones who choose to think that of us.
To prove my point, I challenge you to find any serious creationist who has ever denied natural selection or said that “God did it, so we don’t need to look at the evidence.” Find one and post his/her comments, please.
“Creation scientists have no problem with Gould’s evaluation of natural selection, adding that selection has nothing to do with the origin of species (macroevolution).” -Frank Sherwin, M.A. http://www.icr.org/article/natural-selections-role-real-world/
That’s an interesting site, Paul.. I did spend quite a bit of time on it, reading the various articles presented.
After reading it I came away with a few conclusions, questions and concerns.
1. References to scientific data/studies. There were quite a few references to sources like American journal of Medicine, “Nature”, National Geographic, etc..
What I find curious though is that the references that were called out support rather innocuous claims, like “Horse grass is green”, or “Pink Flamingos are pink”. There was no real meat that I could find.
2. Body of the article, the actual meat, is mostly conjecture and opinion, which is NOT cross-referenced by any supporting data. There are a some fantastic claims and while statements such as “Horse-grass is green” are foot-noted and cross-referenced,
…while statements such as
“But it should no longer be a dead ringer, if evolution is true. It should be extinct and replaced by a differently evolved spider, or even a non-spider, after so much time.”
…Is purely opinion/conjecture, nothing more. It doesn’t ‘prove’ anything, especially without any supporting evidence or study.
So… my take-away is that on the surface, the site appears legit, but once you start digging and asking questions of the material presented it very quickly (And easily) falls apart.
The basic problem here is that people like Paul actually think that rehashing the “same” source material, over and over, in an attempt to find “truth”, most of which is simply derived from current opinion on what it “should” mean, constitutes “cumulative evidence”. They also insist that popularity has something to say about the validity of a position devoid of anything else.
I pretty much just “knew” this sort of argument would get made, at some point, so I bookmarked a relevant page in the Shermer book someone had previously mentioned (not sure it was here, or on another, ironically, parallel discussion I have been in):
Why People Believe Weird Things – “Science is different from pseudoscience, and history is different from pseudohistory, not only in evidence and plausibility, but in how they change. Science and history are cumulative and progressive in that they continue to improve and refine knowledge of our world and our past based on new observations and interpretations. Pseudohistory and pseudoscience, if they change at all, change primarily for personal, political, or ideological reasons.”
2,000 years ago, they, supposedly, nailed someone to a post, because the “politics” of what he was saying. 1,000 years ago they where burning witches, running crusades against people, converting pagans, and praising the rights of kinds. 500 years ago the Protestant movement was declaring names of bodily functions, certain physical acts, and other such trivia as “sins”, following in the footsteps of lots of other morons, who confused “profane” with “evil”, when, originally, it merely meant, “The normal, everyday things you did, when not worshiping.” Today… With the exception of some people that refuse to give up on the absurd Protestant position, the personal, and political stance of what everything in the book means is all some new agey, god loves everyone, and all will be saved, flower child stuff, which would embarrass, in some cases, the hippies. Oddly enough, almost “nothing” has changed the original understanding of the text, and when something does come up, like the lack of evidence for Exodus, the believers deny it, claim it was all some sort of misinterpretation, that it was somehow “hidden”, and a whole lot of other things, which are **not** supported by any sort of evidence. Their understanding of the text, its origins, and even its interpretations, barely change, if at all, even while the rest of the world learns from the cumulative evidence that most of it never happened as written, and even the stuff it does get right, it exaggerates and turns into a fantasy novel worthy of a Persian fable about magic lamps, instead of an accurate, never mind details, historical account.
I.e., it changes, only, due to personal, political, or ideological mandates, not through new knowledge.
Paul’s basic argument devolved into nothing more than “Take a look around you” and “Use Google”…
Sad, because that’s all the evidence he can provide for his god.
Too bad Google was never mentioned in the bible………
//Paul’s basic argument devolved into nothing more than “Take a look around you” and “Use Google”…//
Or…to put it another way, “Notice the elephant in the room” and “Study for yourself.”
I like that. 😉
“Sad, because that’s all the evidence he can provide for his god.”
The entire universe and natural world is not a small amount of evidence. LOL!! “That’s all.” LOL! Sorry, but that made me really laugh today.
//Too bad Google was never mentioned in the bible………//
No, but it’s available now for those who want to study and learn. I use it. Why don’t you give it a try?
Paul, Here’s why your request won’t work:
When/if you do any research into evolution, you begin (incorrectly) with what you already believe is the position of ‘truth’ and anything you may discover along the way that is contrary to what you already consider to be the truth is summarily discarded as ‘Not true’.
Evolution doesn’t stand a chance in any research you do.
Whereas I, starting from a position of knowing nothing and assuming nothing, can read the bible and all I will gain from it are words from the pages.
The bible will tell me that god created the heavens and the earth. The bible will also tell me that whatever is in the bible is true.
So, whatever is in the bible is true because it says so in the bible…
Can you not see the problem with that?
When I “Just take a look around” for the proof that god exists, the only proof I will see is that my surroundings exist, that the earth and the stars exist, and that life exists.
How it all got there, depends on what religion you follow, according to religious doctrine…
Had you been born a Hindu, you would be absolutely certain of the existence of many gods and you would be thoroughly convinced of them and their powers. And if anyone were to tell you that you are wrong, they would be met with the same kind of dismissal as we have here.
So basically this debate is not winnable.
There are many gods in as many religions. You just happened to be indoctrinated with the Christian god.
//Paul, Here’s why your request won’t work:
When/if you do any research into evolution, you begin (incorrectly) with what you already believe is the position of ‘truth’ and anything you may discover along the way that is contrary to what you already consider to be the truth is summarily discarded as ‘Not true’.//
You’re exactly right. But you really believe that you don’t think the exact same way with the exact same presuppositions. But you absolutely do. You are deceiving yourself to say that you approach anything “knowing nothing and assuming nothing.” You absolutely do. You believe in a naturalistic worldview and so you expect the evidence to back that worldview, so that is what you see.
//Evolution doesn’t stand a chance in any research you do.//
Something that is impossible, scientifically or otherwise, cannot stand a chance.
Whereas I, starting from a position of knowing nothing and assuming nothing, can read the bible and all I will gain from it are words from the pages.
//The bible will tell me that god created the heavens and the earth. The bible will also tell me that whatever is in the bible is true.
So, whatever is in the bible is true because it says so in the bible…//
Of course it does. And a standard high school science book will tell me that nothing created everything and that whatever is in that book is true. How is that any different from what the Bible claims?
//Can you not see the problem with that?//
It’s not a problem, but presuppositions on BOTH SIDES are a reality. This is obvious to any Christian who engages in these discussions:
“[The New Atheists] are not open or willing to go where the evidence leads, unless that evidence sustains their own naturalistic assumptions. They have covertly reduced all philosophical thought and deduction to— ironically— faith!” -Ravi Zacharias
//When I “Just take a look around” for the proof that god exists, the only proof I will see is that my surroundings exist, that the earth and the stars exist, and that life exists.
How it all got there, depends on what religion you follow, according to religious doctrine…//
Do you actually believe that Creation scientists don’t do actual science? C’mon now! You aren’t going to take the silly position that unless you believe in evolution you’re not a “real” scientist, are you?
//Had you been born a Hindu, you would be absolutely certain of the existence of many gods and you would be thoroughly convinced of them and their powers. And if anyone were to tell you that you are wrong, they would be met with the same kind of dismissal as we have here.//
You’re exactly right! So to quote you and change a few words, “Had you been born an atheist, you would be absolutely certain of the non-existence of a creator God and you would be thoroughly convinced of the theory of evolution, the ‘Big-Bang,’ etc.”
//So basically this debate is not winnable.//
It’s not winnable unless a person is willing to become unbiased and really look at the evidence. I assume you would agree with that, but in the end each of us would assume that such a person would then agree with our own biased worldview. LOL! You would be certain he would conclude evolution were true, and I Intelligent Design.
//There are many gods in as many religions. You just happened to be indoctrinated with the Christian god.//
And you just happen to be indoctrinated in atheism and a naturalistic worldview.
So what is the difference between you and me? Namely this. I know that I come to the table with a presupposition. But, I also firmly believe that the evidence supports that presupposition. You, on the other hand, do not believe you presuppose anything. You really believe that you, and every evolutionary scientist, approach the evidence with an unbiased attitude and that you’re willing to go where the evidence leads. That is absolutely untrue. It’s very idealistic, but untrue. You approach the evidence exactly like I do: with a presupposition.
Shall I quote one of your own? “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” —Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University,Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999
See? It’s not about science it’s about protecting a presupposition. (Sometimes dishonestly: see “Piltdown Man.”)
Watch Ben Stein’s “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” documentary and you’ll see this presupposition on full display.
“Or…to put it another way, “Notice the elephant in the room” and “Study for yourself.””
That tends to work better Paul, if you stop staring at the Bible while feeling the things over, or at least take off the blindfold.
//That tends to work better Paul, if you stop staring at the Bible while feeling the things over, or at least take off the blindfold.//
Thanks for your opinion.
Now go read my follow up reply to Ray and you’ll see that you start with presuppositions, too. If you don’t think you do, you’re deceiving yourself. Encouraging you to put down Darwin and actually look at the evidence would not be out of place here.
Paul, is simply a liar and a coward. Science is not done with presupposition. Scientific knowledge comes from only what is observed.
>